[Taxacom] Nothofagus

[Rob Smissen]

Ken is quite right. Over time, botanists will "vote with their feet".  It may take a long time to settle, I expect there was gnashing of teeth when people stopped calling them Fagus and dredged up Nothofagus (incidentally, not the oldest name, but conserved against others in the 1950s). I won't be losing any sleep over it, but personally I do find the combinations in Fuscospora convenient for my work on them and will use them for that reason. I found the old classification cumbersome and unhelpful. It certainly obscured to many non-specialist users the important differences between the old subgenera. Subgenera are not generally considered by non-specialists. For example, that silver beech in New Zealand is not a close relative of the other Nothofagaceae species present here is obvious to more people now that the segregate genera are have been accepted by many (but not Stephen or some highly respected paleobotanists). As long as the "old" names are used correctly, I for one have no objection to them.

________________________________

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