[Taxacom] Nothofagaceae

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi all,

       I am generally not a fan of monogeneric families, but since Nothofagaceae is sister group to the rest of the families of Fagales, I see no big problem with it.  Splitting up genus Nothofagus will be seen by many as a violation of the adage "if it isn't broken, don't fix it."


        The question is whether others will follow the proposed splitting of genus Nothofagus.  I see that the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group website mentions the 2013 paper in question, but still recognizes only one genus in Nothofagaceae:  http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.


         If most others agree that the resulting numerous name changes would do more harm than good, then the proposal will probably be ignored by most, and it will be business as usual.  I suspect a monogeneric Nothofagaceae will therefore continue to be what most workers will follow, and that it wasn't broken enough to really need fixing.  Splitting Nothofagus into separate genera (and numerous name changes) is likely to be regarded as too destabilizing and likely to cause confusion.

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 7:57 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Rob Smissen
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nothofagaceae

Since you seem to revel in the attention, let's look more closely at your comment "... having perfectly good taxa named at subgenus rank instead of genus within a monogeneric family". I think this statement says a lot. Please define "perfectly good", and explain why subgeneric rank is not appropriate for such taxa. It should be mentioned here that although the former subgenera may indeed be "perfectly good taxa", they cannot be distinguished by leaf characters alone (though the whole former genus can be), so they may not seem so "perfectly good taxa" to paleobotanists who work on leaf fossils.
Stephen

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

 Subject: [Taxacom] Nothofagaceae
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 12:19 PM

 Stephen,

 You are entitled to your opinion,
 although I would not characterise it as humble. Our (Heenan,
 myself and co-thinkers) opinion was not  "... all just
 about the Linnean ranks (genus vs. subgenus) linked to
 lineage age".

 Among other things it was also about
 the recognition of Nothofagaceae as distinct from (and not
 sister to) Fagus and the resulting situation of having
 perfectly good taxa named at subgenus rank instead of genus
 within a monogeneric family. No-one competent would create
 that de novo, it's a historical accident. Your disagreement
 is really about keeping an objectively inferior
 classification to avoid disruption. That's fine, it is a
 reasonable and defendable position, but I am entitled to
 hold (and publish) my view without it being misrepresented
 by you. By all means take issue with arguments Heenan and I
 actually made. Still, "There is only one thing in life worse
 than being talked about, and that is not being talked
 about."

 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
[http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/__data/assets/image/0004/151069/homepage-thumb.jpg]<http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/>

Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research<http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/>
www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Science for Our Land and Our Future. Ko te pūtaiao mō tō tātou whenua, mō āpōpō



 _______________________________________________
 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.

_______________________________________________
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.