Taxonomic Swap 13443 (Committed on 2015-11-28)

The arguments of Hill, Jordan & Macphail (2015) are far stronger than the weak argument proposed by Heenan & Smissen (2013).

REFERENCES
Heenan, P.B.; Smissen, R.D. 2013: Revised circumscription of Nothofagus and recognition of the segregate genera Fuscospora, Lophozonia, and Trisyngyne (Nothofagaceae). Phytotaxa, 146(1): 1-31. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.146.1.1

Hill, R.S.; Jordan, G.J.; Macphail, M.K. 2015: Why we should retain Nothofagus sensu lato. Australian systematic botany, 28(3): 190-193. doi: 10.1071/SB15026

unknown
Yes
Added by stephen_thorpe on November 28, 2015 09:48 PM | Committed by stephen_thorpe on November 28, 2015
replaced with

Comments

You're jumping the gun here Stephen. iNat's curator guide requests that curators do not follow the latest literature this quickly, as you know. Regardless of the validity of the arguments made in Hill et al. (2015), the iNat rules require us to wait a while and let other botanists digest its merits and reach national agreement (e.g., in NZ Plant Names) before changing NatureWatch NZ. Therefore, don't be surprised if we need to undo your change, at least for a while.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

Sorry Jon, but the same argument applies to you. You made the change away from Nothofagus before other botanists had chance to publish a response to Heenan & Smissen's proposal (and that is all it was, a proposal). I am not merely following the latest literature, I am following the stronger of two opposing viewpoints.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

Hi Stephen. I'd imagine it is probably very hard for most New Zealand botanists to form an opinion on this topic as it is not only very recently published, but also they do not have free access to read the paper in question. Unlike university staff we do not have free access to most journals.
I currently have no opinion as I have not read the paper, but I thought that as a general rule, with the odd exception nature-watch New Zealand follows the Landcare Research New Zealand Flora data-base for consistency? This was after all your argument for changing Ozothamnus vauvilliersii to O. leptophyllus was it not?

Posted by rowan_hindmarsh_w... over 8 years ago

The two cases are entirely different. One (Ozothamnus) is a case of lumping vs. splitting at the species level. These cases are very common. Since the species involved are relatively obscure, it isn't a big deal. On the other hand, the splitting of Nothofagus was a blatant case of self indulgence, with complete disregard for the consequences for others of nomenclatural instability for such an important taxon, based on a pathetically weak argument. Of course the Landcare Research New Zealand Flora data-base is going to follow Heenan & Smissen, since they are Landcare botanists! Hill, Jordan & Macphail (2015) have published, in a peer reviewed paper, a strong and clearly set out rebuttal to Heenan & Smissen's proposal. Nobody has yet done this for Ozothamnus.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

The thing here is that we want to follow the majority opinion of NZ botanists on our NatureWatch NZ names, and in NZ that's primarily represented by Landcare Research's national plant names database (and also by the NZPCN names database). My change followed the plant names database, not the publication of the Heenan et al. paper, so it is different to your change.

I accept your point that this change was adopted quickly by the plant names database, and perhaps we should have waited longer to see what the consensus would be. The exact same argument can be made for your rapid adoption of the Hill et al. (2015) paper. Waiting it good. It's a slippery area, as you know, since we get push back in the opposite direction from taxonomists wanting to see the latest described taxa and taxonomic changes (that they agree with) loaded onto NatureWatch NZ promptly. In relatively well resourced taxa like plants, these decisions should be the job of the national names database.

If Hill et al. (2015) have the stronger case (I say "if" only because I've not read it yet), then I'd like to think that it will be adopted by one or both of the two NZ plant names databases (Landcare's plant names and NZPCN). Once that's done, we should follow them on NatureWatch NZ.

It is not our job as NatureWatch NZ curators to weigh up the respective worth of two recently publishing conflicting taxonomic papers. If we jump ahead of this process and we can expect to get into hot water with the wider iNaturalist community.

In taxa that are not as well resourced and do not have regularly updated names databases, there's a stronger case for curators adopting taxonomic changes from the literature.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

The problem with your rationale here Jon is that it makes the somewhat naive assumption that the science will win out over the politics, and it also makes taxonomy/nomenclature disturbingly parochial. By that I mean that taxonomy/nomenclature, like any other aspect of science, is global in scope, so we really don't want to be using different names in different countries for the same taxa. Restricting matters to "the majority opinion of NZ botanists" is unjustifiably excluding the valid opinions of others. The key point here is that Landcare Research's national plant names database is always going to accept the published taxonomic opinions of its own botanists. There is no science in that! Peter told me that the change was accepted by NZPCN merely to [quote]keep the politics right[unquote]. Peter is primarily concerned with taxonomy at the species level, as only this is relevant to conservation, so it doesn't really affect him if genera change. I strongly suggest that N.Z. and the world deserve better than to have to accept the results of self-indulgent and significantly destabilizing proposals such as that of Heenan & Smissen, primarily because of local politics. This particular example is a particularly bad one, since it involves important taxa referred to as Nothofagus in a vast amount of literature, not only taxonomic literature, but also ecological, biogeographical, etc. NatureWatch is set up so that either name will work, it is just a matter of which name is treated as "preferred". I strongly urge you to take a conservative approach in this case, and refrain from changing such important names as those for Nothofagus until such time, if ever, that the issue is definitively settled (but don't hold your breath on that).

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

Hi. I didn't mean to be parochial. We already have the rule in place on the iNaturalist Network that the global taxonomic view can trump the NZ one when there is a contradiction. That's already in place with some bird taxa following the global Clements list in direct contradiction of the NZ bird names list. The problem is that the Clements global bird list is well resourced and frequently updated. The Plant List isn't updated as frequently. That's why we have the option of following regionally accepted names lists when those lists are more up-to-date.

I accept that there's politics in this but we're trying to stay out of that. Landcare's list and NZPCN agreed to accept the Nothofagus split so we followed them. We should keep it that way, until those lists adopt the Hill et al. (2015) recommendations or a more recent Plant List version comes out that does so.

I accept that there's some validity to the counter-argument that we should be following the global Plant List only in cases of one-to-one synonymy. We didn't in this case, and followed plant names and NZPCN. It's counter-productive to flip it back again until either the NZ names databases changes or a more recent version of the Plant List is released.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

Sorry Jon, but your current argument supports the status quo on NatureWatch NZ, and that current version is (thanks to me) Nothofagus again. I agree that it would be counter-productive to flip back again, so please don't! The only mistake that was made here was to follow Heenan & Smissen's proposal too early, so we should rectify that. We should enthusiastically grab hold of the Hill et al. article as much needed counterargument (written and peer reviewed by botanists) to Heenan & Smissen's proposal. A database like NZ Plant Names or NZPCN is no different to a publication like Hill et al., or any other. All are simply platforms for proposals with more or less bias and/or COI. At least Hill et al. isn't blatantly biased, and does offer strong rational reasons for rejection of Heenan & Smissen's proposal, rather than just being close colleagues backing each other up. NZ Plant Names or NZPCN are not independent enough from Heenan & Smissen to count as independent votes for their proposal. In 99% of cases, none of this matters too much, but in this one case (Nothofagus) it is very important to take a conservative approach to a highly destabilizing and devisive proposal.

Additionally, it is impossible to follow something without endorsing it, and if Heenan & Smissen's proposal seems to be getting our endorsement as well, then that will likely sway others to adopt the proposal too! Hence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which we have helped along the way*.

The one good thing about Heenan & Smissen's proposal is that they did make their reasons very clear. So clear in fact that any fool should be able to see how weak those reasons are!

*This is one danger of a "consensus" approach.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

Thanks. I'm thinking about this. I appreciate your argument that I may have followed plant names too soon. (That doesn't mean I agree, but I see your point.)

Since we've mentioned politics a few times, note that you've put NatureWatch NZ in an awkward position nationally by having one entomologist unanimously reverse a prominent plant taxon from a state that most NZ botanists had accepted. You've also put us in an awkward position internationally by basing this change on a just-published paper in violation of the iNaturalist curator guide. (Yes, you wouldn't have needed to do that if we hadn't been so quick to follow NZ plant names.) Also, you're putting us in an awkward position by not holding back on publicly expressing your opinions of the Heenan et al. (2013) paper (it's unnecessary and making it harder for us to adopt your position).

All of this politics could have been avoided if you'd given us a heads up about this change before you made it. We want to get this stuff right but it's awkward to have been blind-sided like this.

It's best that botanists take the lead on plant taxonomy. It's their realm. There are plenty of good botanists on NatureWatch NZ and iNaturalist. Let's talk to them before making non-cosmetic name changes like this.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

I don't think that I am putting anyone in an awkward position! Heenan & Smissen have dragged us all into a very awkward position. Please vent your frustrations in their direction rather than mine, as you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction by pointing it at me. The Nothofagus mess is absolutely unprecedented. If anyone publishes anything, then it is open to public scrutiny, and I am a card carrying member of the public, so it is open to my scrutiny. If I think that it is self-indulgent nonsense, then I will say so (backing my stance up with rational reasons, of course). By your own admission, you haven't even read the article by Hill et al. yet! As I already made very clear, I am not basing anything on a just-published paper. That is what you did, not me! Regardless of when, where or how the Hill et al. paper was published, and whether it was an article or a database, it effectively demolishes Heenan & Smissen's proposal on rational grounds, which is why I followed it as justification to try to negate your premature acceptance of H. & S. Again, we should not be arguing about this. It is all the fault of H. & S. for being so shockingly self-indulgent with disregard for the consequences of their proposal for other people. And, as I said, I don't see how we can accept it, even tentatively, without appearing to endorse it, and thereby appearing to add to the consensus view in their favour. I'm not the bad guy here (and neither are you) ...

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

PS: Don't you think that H. & S. could/should have discussed their proposal with a range of botanist colleagues both here and overseas (e.g. Australia) before publishing? As far as I can tell, few people if any were consulted beforehand. I also note that they quickly followed their proposal up with a couple of publications which use their new names so as to boost usage. This whole thing is just ringing major alarm bells for me. Their aknowledgements section reads 'We thank Edward Doonerwind of the Landcare Research Library, Lincoln, for assistance with literature; Ilse Breitwieser, Phil Novis and Christine Bezar for reviewing the draft manuscript; Matt McGlone for discussion ...' Keeping it all in the family, aren't they?

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

It is going too far to claim that the Heenan et al. (2013) is "self-indulgent nonsense". There's clearly a lot of genetic variation within Nothofagus sensu lato and in NZ it's long been known that some specialist fungi and insect herbivores regard silver beech as quite different from our other beech species. Having them in different genera is not a big stretch.

The issue as I understand it is at what level within all this variation the genus line is drawn. And, in what circumstances does it make sense to redraw the existing genus line. As you'll know, botany has a long history of calving up big genera into several smaller genera. I spend a lot of time with Senecio and genera keep getting plucked from it (e.g., ragwort to Jacobaea). Hebe, Parahebe, and Chionohebe are an unfortunate exception in that they were split off from Veronica, then split up further, but then all lumped back together again.

I don't see anyone disputing the fact that the split proposed by Heenan et al. (2013) better labels the extensive genetic variation in the taxon. However, the split was also undeniably disruptive to everyone else using the taxonomy. Hill et al. (2015) also now make a solid case that this split creates problems from the perspective of fossils.

A case can be made that the cost of this disruption outweighs the increased elegance (for a better word) of the new names. Then again, requiring nomenclature to accurately reflect the current best inferences about evolutionary relationships is an inherently disruptive way to name species.

Regardless, speaking for the teams running NatureWatch NZ and iNaturalist, we'd like to see the botanists on the sites make the final call on what direction to take these big taxonomic changes. Doing otherwise annoys the botanists using the sites, which is unhelpful (and, yes, dealing with the fallout has been awkward).

Jerry Cooper tells me that he doesn't expect the Plant List to be updated again any time soon, which means our botany curators are going to have to be increasingly careful to only adopt changes from NZ plant names when they are in agreement with other updated names lists from other regions. That's a mea culpa from me. For Australasian taxa shared between NZ and Australia, a sensible way forward is to only change NatureWatch NZ after both country's names databases have adopted a change.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

No, I don't think you have quite given an accurate summary. Nothofagus in the traditional sense is not a big genus (the beetle genus Agrilus is a big genus, with over 3000 species, see here), so does not need to split up into smaller genera for that reason. There is simply no taxonomic or nomenclatural necessity to disrupt the status quo for Nothofagus. There are no definite rules in taxonomy to correlate Linnean rank with age of lineage, and the difference between genus and subgenus would be miniscule anyway. Given that we already can refer to the subgenera with the names Lophozonia, etc. anyway, to upgrade them to full genus is purely disruptive and gains us nothing. This is entirely different to the case of Hebe, for example, whereby Veronica is (allegedly anyway) paraphyletic without inclusion of Hebe. There are no such phylogenetic problems in the case of Nothofagus. Instead of tackling a plant group which actually needs taxonomic revision, Heenan and Smissen have chosen instead to tinker. Hill et al. didn't only reject H. & S.'s proposal on the grounds that it would have inconvenient consequences for them as paleobotanists, they also made the general point that it would involve much disruption for no gain. If you are happy for H. & S. to have sat down one day and decided to tinker in such a way as to have their names as taxon authorities appended to all the new combinations in Nothofagus, without there being any taxonomic or nomenclatural necessity to change anything, then good for you.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

Yes, how much genetic variation a genus represents is pretty subjective. I get that. But this doesn't stop botanists from splitting up genera when they're found to represent a lot of variation. The spit of Veronica into Hebe and then Hebe into Hebe, Parahebe, and Chionohebe, seems exactly analogous to what Heenan et al. (2013) did to Nothofagus. The paraphyletic mess that was Veronica, and subsequent lumping fix, is different.

And, yes, it would be great to see all this effort focused instead on much needed basic species descriptions and long overdue revisions. (That's not exactly the science funding model we live in though.)

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

Yes, how much genetic variation a genus represents is pretty subjective

Yes, indeed.

But this doesn't stop botanists from splitting up genera when they're found to represent a lot of variation

That is true, but it isn't clear in this case that there is "a lot" of variation (and how much is "a lot"?) H. & S. just claim that it would be more in keeping with other genera in Fagales if Nothofagus was split. Equally, this is an argument for lumping some of the other genera of Fagales so that they are more in keeping with Nothofagus. But it is a non-issue anyway, because we all know that there really isn't a correlation between Linnean rank and age of lineage, or even distinctiveness. You could make it more even in Fagales, but overall it is still always going to be a mishmash across all groups, but that is OK because it doesn't make any real difference to anything anyway.

The key point, which you appear to keep missing, is that for any proposed name change based on mere preferences (as in this case), the amount of disruption to others should be factored in, and H. & S. did not do so. Arguably, there is less disruption involved in tinkering with Hebe than there is in the present case of Nothofagus. We don't need to rewrite as many textbooks in the case of Hebe. Taxonomists need to think twice before changing such important names as Nothofagus. It is almost the botanical equivalent of Drosophila, for which there is a lot of debate at the moment, but at least the debate is happening before any changes.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

No, I do get your point that disruption is an important consideration. That hasn't stopped genera being split up before though. I don't see Heenan et al. (2013) as being an exception here.

In this age of instant access global databases, why don't we just separate taxon names from relatedness? It's convenient to be able to look at a scientific name and instantly know what it's nearest congeners are. Still, I can look that up on my smart phone in an instant if the name is unique. If we did this, the taxon names could remain unchanged while evolutionary relationships are debated and improved. Birders have figured this out and tried to standardise their English common names. I initially thought that was a bit superfluous but over the past 20 years bird common names have been much more stable than scientific names. If each species had a globally unique, pronounceable, and stable Latin name, I'd be quite happy.

That's a bit off topic, I know, but it would have side-stepped this Nothofagus issue completely with regard to disruption.

Posted by jon_sullivan over 8 years ago

Heenan et al. (2013) isn't an exception, but it is a particularly bad case (it would be somewhat equivalent to changing the name of Drosophila without any prior discussion or consultation). We cannot let the whims of taxonomists have complete freedom to change whatever names they like without very good reason.

As for separating taxon names from relatedness, Rod Page has also suggest this many times (on Taxacom). While it does make some sense, the major obstacle is that it simply isn't going to happen. It is not in keeping with how most taxonomists think.

Posted by stephen_thorpe over 8 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments