Mon Jul 30 15:35:07 CDT 2001
These are really two issues. When ever biota are combined systemically and
thus nomenclatorially the oldest name gets priority - that is mechanics.
On the other hand no one is obligated to embrace or adopt the combinations.
This is why I myself think strict peer-review _in the field of taxonomy_
is way over blown. A published research paper is not someone telling all
the rest of us that they are now the only one who has anything to say on X
subject and we now must all fall in line. Rather, it is the researcher(s)
saying here is what I have done and what I have determined by my means and
methods, now what do the rest of you think of the conclusion? The only
question pre-publication should be, is this researcher's material worth
puttig forth to everyone else for consideration as it looks like it is
probably correct. - or more correct than the current understanding of X.
True peer-review occurs over decades by everyone in X field. It is not
accomplished dependant on the red or green light given by what one or two
others say about the particular research paper. The reviewer is likely to
be just as wrong as the writer. Or, the writer is absolutely correct and he
happens to suffer the misfortune of having his paper anomalously handed to
some Ego who would trash any paper on X because he sees X as his own
personal king-of-the-hill domain.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bunch" <pbunch at CTS.COM>
Subject: Re: Amaranthaceae
> How well accepted is this merger? This is a outside my main area of
> interest and I see the general similarity but it is a little surprising.
> don't think I've ever mixed them up in the field.
> Phil Bunch
> On Monday, July 30, 2001 01:07, Abdulghafor Nawaz
[SMTP:nawaz at KACST.EDU.SA]
> > Dear List members,
> > Recently families Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae have been merged and
> the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by Adanson,
> Fam. Pl. 2: 266. Jul.-Aug. 1763 (Amaranthi).
> > Long ago, in the year 1835, Burnett described the family Betaceae in
> Outl. Bot.: 591, 1091, 1142. Jun. 1835. Burnett's concept of Betaceae
> included both the present day Amaranthaceae s. str. and Chenopodiaceae.
> > My question to the listmember, especially those interested in
> nomenclature, is :
> > Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising
> Amaranthaceae Adans. s. str.(1763) and Chenopodiaceae Vent. (1799).
> > Thanks and appreciation for the anticipated replies.
> > Abdul Ghafoor
> > Scientific Research Specialist,
> > NRERI, KACST,
> > P.O.Box 6086,
> > Riyadh-11442
> > Saudi Arabia
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001
More information about the Taxacom