pbunch at CTS.COM
Mon Jul 30 17:27:58 CDT 2001
I agree completely. I just hope to get some feedback from people who really
know something about these families. Since I deal with regulatory issues a
lot I'd like to stay ahead of the curve on the nomenclature of two very
important families in my region.
Lemon Grove, California
On Monday, July 30, 2001 12:35, Ron Gatrelle [SMTP:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> These are really two issues. When ever biota are combined systemically
> thus nomenclatorially the oldest name gets priority - that is mechanics.
> On the other hand no one is obligated to embrace or adopt the
> 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
> 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
> 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
> happens to suffer the misfortune of having his paper anomalously handed
> 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
> > 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]
> > wrote:
> > > Dear List members,
> > >
> > > Recently families Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae have been merged
> > the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by
> > 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