[Taxacom] FW: Callfor proxy votesfortheforthcomingInternational Botanical Congress
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Wed Jul 6 12:59:16 CDT 2011
Of course the proper solution, used in many cases in the past, is to
just make subgenera of the two groups, as John Grehan suggests.
The only reason for this Acacia nonsense is that there is a difference
in definition of "monophyletic." Phylogeneticists insist that if a group
is split by a nested apophyletic taxon of the same rank, then you must
lump all of them or name three taxa. Evolutionary systematists call the
paraphyletic group monophyletic but just lacking the macroevolutionarily
different apophyletic group, which accidently not its fault evolved from
near the center of Acacia instead of as a sister group.
Mary Barkworth is correct that the Code deals with nomenclature, not
taxonomy. I think that there are many nomenclatural workarounds possible
any of which we can live with. (Witness how we continue to tolerate the
mindless tyranny of autonyms.) The main problem with Acacia is not
nomenclatural, but nobody talks about it.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:13 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Callfor proxy
votesfortheforthcomingInternational Botanical Congress
I'm confused. What is the proposed phylogeny for the large and small
groups. If they are monophyletic there would seem to be no rationale for
making this change - just make both groups subgenera of Acacia.
If someone has a copy, I would be interested to read the paper on which
the phylogeny is based so I can try to make sense of the situation (out
of perverse curiosity).
More information about the Taxacom