[Taxacom] Quacks like a duck
kennethkinman at webtv.net
Wed Feb 17 20:25:15 CST 2010
Hi David and Richard,
I would agree that guideline would have been better in their
statement. However, the use of their phrase "should follow" is an
indication that they (editors or reviewers) might still discriminate
against papers which don't follow APG. It almost sounds more like a
veiled threat than a recommendation.
That is particularly disturbing regarding the "placement of
genera", as though the APG placement of genera is the final word. As
for the families recognized by APG, I haven't delved into that too
deeply, but several overlumped Orders (such as Malpighiales and Poales)
in their classification makes me strongly suspect that they have done
the same thing to various families as well.
David Wagner wrote:
Just to get clear, I queried the chief editor of Phytotaxa (Maarten
Christenhusz) and he replied that this statement from their website is
not a requirement but only a guideline. I suggested the word guideline
be included in the statement lest they come under unnecessary criticism
from people (like me) who sometimes disagree with APG-III and its
adherence to a particular brand of phylogenetic dogma.
David H. Wagner, Ph.D.
Northwest Botanical Institute
P.O. Box 30064
Eugene, OR 97403-1064
davidwagner at mac.com
On Feb 17, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Richard Zander wrote:
> "Family classification and placement of genera should >follow APG-III
> (2009) for flowering plants and Smith et al. (2006) for >ferns."
> I can see the value of a standard suprageneric >classification if this
> were a journal focused on description of species, but it >is not. The
> above requirement is simply wrong.
More information about the Taxacom