Taxonomic Swap 41534
(הועלה ב 2018-10-29)
|
|
הוחלף ב |
|
תגובות
I've been out of circulation; now browsing through taxon changes instead of working the first night shift.
Congratulations and felicitations on taking the right step here (and in related cases). I am still astonished by this situation. I expect there to be an obscure publication (newsletter, internal memo, Get Well card) that sanctioned this flirtation with the devil. The existence of such a document is the only way in which I will not consider this nomenclatural travesty as wilful ignorance.
So, have there been any dansende poppe yet?
EDIT: I notice that GBIF accepts either name.
Not a squeak
Dicerothamnus is an unpublished PhD name. There are two schools of thought. That the name should never have been incorporated into the literature until it was published. and that it was such a short little paper it would have been published years ago. Those that jumped the gun burned their fingers, and those who waited might have to change anyway tomorrow. Apparently the DNA is conclusive. But somehow dividing an 8 species genus into 3 genera seems ridiculous. I am not sure which other genera are muddying the waters, I suppose one day I should (when iti s published) ...
Ag Rebelo jy weet ... I need a cold night with a small fire and a big sky to discuss this properly -- and somebody who wants to discuss it with me will also come in useful.
Superficial study over the last 3-4 hours so rapidly lead to so many things to discuss only pertaining to renosterbos and paper daisies. Dis 'n gejaag na wind. I'll leave here four comments only and then I'll shut up and go count weevils.
Koekemoer's (2002) thesis is hardly publishable any more. Her approach was non-phylogenetic. You cannot possibly in this case blame the profusion of new genera on cladistic splitting. And there wasn't a nucleic acid in sight -- your comment that "apparently the DNA is conclusive" is mistaken. She did not study DNA [I rush to say that she needn't have to].
Some of Koekemoer's (2002) taxonomic novelties have been published, but Dicerothamnus -- the sore thumb -- has most certainly not been validly published. In other words, this name simply does not exist for the purposes of scientific nomenclature. It has to be eradicated.
You point to two schools of thought above. School 1 is reality. School 2 will never materialise, since (as said) I doubt that Koekemoer's remaining PhD work is publishable any longer. It has been superseded by work in phylogenetic context [with a dash of DNA, not strictly required] by Anderberg, Bengtson, Karis, a little Linder, and a big fat dose of Bergh. Together and separately, they have left Koekemoer far behind.
Death to Dicerothamnus.
'Cape Plants' (newish duplex volumes) does not contain the word Dicerothamnus. Elytropappus contributed by M. Koekemoer.
Google taxonomy! The worst kind of taxonomy! But at times enlightening, as long as you're aware that it tends to affirm the consequent:
•• Google Scholar
•• 2002 to 2018
◘ (dicerothamnus –elytropappus): 62 hits.
◘ (elytropappus –dicerothamnus): 558 hits.
The biggest travesty was Mucino as editor overriding the authors for the vegetation book and replacing Elytropappus with Dicerothamnus throughout. We gave him our reasons, and he decided not to comply. Perhaps as much as 80% of instances of Dicerothmanus are due to this.
(DNA: whoops was going on heresay - even worse ...; point 3: I think that this might have been enforced rather than desired? it is rather embarrassing all round)
en nou gaan die poppe dans!