[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

Fri Jun 1 18:00:41 CDT 2018

Rob said: "I am not claiming that this is an argument of science against tradition, only that both are in play"

Well, that's odd! It certainly seemed that you were claiming exactly that, and simply ignoring the "tradition" (decades of very wide usage) in favour of the "science"! The "science" in this case provides only an extremely weak justification for the changes, being based purely on issues to try to justify an upgrade of subgenera to full genera when there are no objective criteria distinguishing between supraspecific Linnean ranks anyway!

It is a classic case of cherry-picking. There are always reasons for and against any proposal, but you seem to have cherry-picked a (weak) reason for, but ignored (stronger) reasons against. As somewhat of an analogy: should I steal that chocolate bar from that child? Well, I'm hungry and I like chocolate, so there's two good reasons in favour of doing so! If I don't even consider the -ve effects on the child, then of course I can make an argument based only on the reasons for!

I'll be straight with you: what annoys me about this case is that I can see how the changes benefit the authors (you and Heenan) and their employing institution, by way of citations/publicity, but it seems to me to be at the cost of disadvantage (disruption/confusion) to everyone else!

Given my annoyance (as outlined above), there is little that I can do to moderate my tone. I am simply being honest with you, and yes I am annoyed.

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/6/18, Rob Smissen <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 8:45 PM

 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