[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 10:32:38 CDT 2018
Rob,
Some comments below:
“I am not sure that splitting Nothofagus is less disruptive for Heenan and
I than everyone else.”
I would agree that ‘disruption’ is relative to perspective. All taxonomic
and systematic changes are disruptive in one way or another. While
systematic changes (changes concerning relationships) is predicated on the
evidence of relationship, changes to the scope of a taxonomic group is
completely arbitrary and so much a matter of perspective as to whether it
may be found acceptable. Since Nothofagus is a high profile group in both
systematics and biogeography any proposed changes are likely to attract
considerably more attention.
“ 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.”
This being directed at Stephen, but it gets tricky if one imputes a meaning
like this. I don’t see any necessary connection between ‘disruptive’ and
inferences of these kinds.Might be better to ask first.
“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.”
In this situation there is not ‘correct’ name choice as far as I can see. I
think it would be incorrect for you to render an opinion about the correct
names, just your preference as to the preferred names.
“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.”
Certainly anyone’s taxonomic (or even systematic) preference should not
elicit ill feeling.
“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.”
I think its less about not liking name changes as it is about whether
particular name changes are desirable. If a name change is necessary (such
as when a species name has to be changed due to an original mis-designation
of a type) it does not matter whether the change is liked or not.
“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.”
There is no science (as I understand it) in deciding over the scope of a
genus. There may be some scientific data (on morphological or molecular
similarity etc), but the interpretation of that data in terms of generic
scope is purely arbitarary.
“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.”
True, such decisions may use quantitative data and be carefully considered,
but where to draw the line becomes a personal assessment.
“ 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 might have. It’s a speculative issue since one cannot go back in time and
re-run the event.
“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.”
As a biogeographer I am neither positively or negatively affected. For my
purposes I have no driving imperative for discontinuing using Nothofagus
for the entire group.
“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?”
I am a bit concerned about characterizing Stephen’s response as baiting
(taunt, tease, goad, pick on, torment, persecute, plague, harry, bother,
harass, hound), in the sense that any persistent critique or criticism of a
choice may be viewed this way. One might say, for example, I am always
‘baiting’ views such as paraphyly, selection stories, centers or origin
chance dispersal stories, and misrepresentation of molecular dating. Years
ago I found that certain government departments (in NZ) would dismiss any
critique of its philosophy, approach, methodology etc) as 'abusive'.
As a final note, in response to your offline comment about the omission of
Heads’ work being accidental (but still quite incredible, particularly for
a Journal of Biogeography article which is about as prominent as one can
get in the field, and you say that the paper was extensively reviewed).
Perhaps it was an accident in this instance and I have no reason to
question your appraisal of that). I am always attuned to the omission of
panbiogeographic studies as overall there is quite a pattern of omission
(and some considerable misrepresentation). Perhaps all (over the decades)
are accidental, but I suspect that many are not.
John Grehan
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:45 AM, Rob Smissen <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz
> wrote:
> 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.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list