[Taxacom] Nothofagaceae

[John Grehan]

Rob, I have read your paper and it seems to me that the issue is not about
an 'objectively inferior classification' but rather different views about
the classification ranks (genera vs sub-genera), the choice between them
being completely arbitrary (arbitrary in that there is no universality to
the criteria and how they may determine the choice). While Stephen may have
only referred to lineage age whereas you considered other criteria, but it
seems to me that it does not change the essential point that this was just
a personal judgement of certain parameters. For that reason there is no
objective basis for you to assert that only an incompetent person would
propose perfectly good taxa named at subgenus rank instead of genus within
a monogeneric family. The choice has nothing to do with competence. As you
say, botanists will vote with their feet according to their personal
preferences.

Interesting that your paper omitted reference to Heads (2006) while citing
traditional biogeographic studies on Nothofagus (sensu pre Heeney &
Smissen).

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>
<#m_-2866536453596612392_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Rob Smissen <
SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>