Should we ditch infageneric ranks?

Kevin Thiele K.Thiele at CBIT.UQ.EDU.AU
Tue Sep 27 12:40:59 CDT 2005


I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about Banksia and
Dryandra as such, because my question is a more general one.

But, for the record, Banksia has priority (as, I suppose in some ways, Banks
had over Dryander). So there will be no Big Bad Dryandra Men.

> Just for the fun of it, let's include a third option:
>
>     3. Leave it alone.

That's not an option at the level of the question, which was not about
whether we SHOULD sink Dryandra into Banksia, but what we should do about
the infrataxa given that we intend to sink.

Cheers - Kevin Thiele

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf
Of Nadia Talent
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2005 12:22 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Should we ditch infageneric ranks?

On 26 Sep 2005, at 19:08, Kevin Thiele wrote:
> A colleague and I are preparing a paper to merge two Australian
> proteaceous
> genera (Dryandra, 93 spp and Banksia, 80 spp). Morphological and
> molecular
> results provide strong evidence that the latter is paraphyletic
> with respect
> to the former.

On 26 Sep 2005, at 19:59, Mike Dallwitz wrote:

>> We are keen to poll TAXACOM members as to their opinions on these two
>> alternative courses of action - what do you think we should do?
>>
>
> Just for the fun of it, let's include a third option:
>
>     3. Leave it alone.

Given the intense public interest in Australia over the recent Acacia/
Racosperma debate at the IBC, it would be interesting to know whether
Dryandra or Banksia has nomenclatural priority. Would the children's
song now feature Big Bad Dryandra Men?

Nadia Talent
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada




More information about the Taxacom mailing list