[Taxacom] the decline of taxonomy in N.Z.: a further example

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Fri Feb 26 02:14:01 CST 2010

>>> Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 02/26/10 5:42 PM >>>
"Actually, I seem to have broadcast this Phytophthora case just 2 weeks
too late - this report
dated 08 February 2010, suggests that it has now been identified as a
described species. Still, when it was thought to be new, there were no
plans to described it ..."

No, you're still on track that it hasn't been id'd as a described species.
That sciencelearn site seems to have it wrong. They say "Dr Gadgil reports
that the fungus is in fact Phytophthora heveae" However, the person they
quote (Peter Gadgil) is just indicating it is not a new _occurrence_. If
you check here in the source newsletter (Oct 2009) [
] you will still see this:

"More work is needed to determine whether the New Zealand species is new
and until that decision is made, an informal name, Phytophthora ‘taxon
AgathisÂ’ is being used (for full details see Beever et al. 2009)."

And: "New Zealand isolates were identical [to each other] and close to but
DISTINCT from the Malaysian P. heveae.

So Stephen, as it now appears you hadn't that much grasp of the details of
the case when you claimed that "nobody will fund the taxonomy of the
Phytophthora to give it an official name!" (a difficult statement to prove
by the way), the advice to choose your battles carefully as given in Ken
Kinman's response applies with full force.


Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz

More information about the Taxacom mailing list