[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

Fri Jun 1 06:24:32 CDT 2018

What strikes me as interesting in the 2013 paper
is the combination Fuscospora alessandri, and
especially the epithet.  However, there is no
comment in the paper on the choice that is made.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Smissen" <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Stephen Thorpe" 
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

> Right, so this is about disruption. Agreed.
>
>
> I do hope the work Heenan and I did at least has value as a review of the 
> evidence and a proper synonomy of the names for those who wish to delve 
> into the older (pre Hill and Read) literature and the nomenclatural 
> history.
>
>
> I am not sure that splitting Nothofagus is less disruptive for Heenan and 
> I than everyone else. I think what you mean is that we were paid for some 
> of the work and get citations from it. If that is what you mean I take 
> your point, probably fair. I understand, second hand, that some 
> paleobotanists have been genuinely upset by our proposal and I regret 
> that. I have reviewed papers using names in Nothofagus for plants I would 
> classify in other genera, and I have given my opinion as to the correct 
> names in Nothofagus. I am not trying to force anything on anyone. 
> Certainly one Paleobotanist expressed his feelings strongly to me, but 
> being Australian he still bought me a beer.
>
>
> I'm also aware that some plant ecologists don't like name changes. 
> However, none of my plant ecologist colleagues have expressed concern to 
> me directly, and some have adopted the names.
>
>
> Taxonomy is a strange mix of tradition and science, and that a volatile 
> mix. I am not claiming that this is an argument of science against 
> tradition, only that both are in play. While splitting a holophyletic 
> genus is always going to have a subjective element, some of these issues 
> can be quantified or at least elaborated and considered. I withdraw and 
> apologise for my statement that "no competent taxonomist" would erect the 
> pre Heenan and Smissen classification. I'm not in a position to say that. 
> Rather, I would be interested in the opinion of anyone who would.
>
>
> I am interested in hearing considered views by botanists (or others) 
> negatively effected by splitting Nothofagus. I do have an open mind, and I 
> think the underlying issues are useful for the taxonomic community.
>
> Thanks John, Ken, Richard et al. for your considered input. Stephen, 
> you've been baiting me a while on this, perhaps a more pedagological tone 
> would be more effective?
>
> More than happy to discuss offline from this point.
>
> best wishes
> Rob
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 6:09:43 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Rob Smissen
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae
>
> "Both communicate the same relationships, one is more efficient"
>
> But more disruptive (to all but the authors of the changes!)
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 1/6/18, Rob Smissen <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 5:01 PM
>
> Hi John
>
> I agree it is a matter of personal
> choice whether to use names in Nothofagus or segragate
> genera. I also agree that Stephen's general position is not
> invalidated by my objection to his characterisation of mine
> as only about clade age. I characterise the monogeneric
> treatment of Nothofagaceae as "objectively inferior" based
> on two of the criteria articulated in our paper. I admit it
> was probably an unnecessarily polemical phrasing.
>
> The crieteria I refer  to are
> 1. Primary taxonomic ranks (e.g.
> family, genus, species) as defined in the International Code
> of Nomenclature (ICN; McNeill et al. 2012) should be used
> first in a classification, and secondary ranks (e.g.
> subgenus) used as required.
> 2. Classifications should maximise
> phylogenetic information and minimise redundancy.
>
> Although I do not propose that these
> are necessarily decisive in this or any similar debate, and
> they may not be universally agreeable, they are objective
> criteria.
>
> I hold to my position that no competent
> taxonomist would erect a classification of these plants
> according to the pre Heenan and Smissen status quo if these
> were newly discovered organisms. It uses family and genus to
> name the same clade and unnecessarily introduces subgenus.
> Note that I am not saying for a moment that Hill and Read
> should not have recognised these taxa at subgeneric rank at
> the time they did. Apart from the argument of convenience in
> naming fossils (still perhaps a live argument), in
> accordance with many others at that time they continued to
> classify these plant  within Fagaceae.  That is no
> longer tenable.
>
> Hence the old,
> Nothofagaceae (1 genus)
> Nothofagus (4 subgenera)
> Nothofagus subgenus Nothofagus,
> Nothofagus subgenus Brassospora, Nothofagus subgenus
> Lophozonia, Nothofagus subgenus Fuscospora.
>
> And the new,
> Nothofagaceae (4 genera)
> Nothofagus, Trisyngyne, Lophozonia,
> Fuscospora.
>
> Both communicate the same
> relationships, one is more efficient.
>
> Cheers
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Please consider the environment before
> printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message
> together with any attachments is confidential. If you
> receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
> copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
> immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may
> not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. 
> http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
> to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
> Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the
> list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
> Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is 
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, 
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by 
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research 
> New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: 
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: 
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
> 