Replies: 7 comments 10 replies
-
|
Do we (PPG) have a policy regarding proposals and voting on classifications that are dependent on current Nomenclature proposals? The multi-genus Selaginellaceae classification by Zhou and Zhang (2023) is underpinned by a type change for the genus (see Wan et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12918). Could this be a curious circular situation where the decision of the nomenclature committee has a bearing on our decision as PPG and/or visa versa? Ash |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As a matter of full disclosure, I should inform you that I strongly oppose splitting Selaginella as proposed by Zhou & Zhang (2023), and relevant arguments against the proposal by Wan et al. (2023) were already submitted for publication. Regarding the matter of PPGII including or not proposals that could be affected by IBC decisions, it seems appropriate to: a) discuss them and get an idea as to what interested parties have to say about them but not to make any formal recommendations as to approval or disapproval for inclusion in PPG II; b) wait to make a formal decision to include or not them in PPG II based on discussions in this forum and on final decisions by the IBC. I believe these positions cover what Choess and GuguYanez have already said. It also allows for applying lessons learned based on the example mentioned by Schuettpelze regarding the proposal to conserve Drynaria against Aglaomorpha. Furthermore, I don't think that discussions in this forum should be submitted to the IBC in order to influence, in one way or another, final decisions by that body, unless a full report containing all points of view expressed here is submitted to them. Finally and back to Selaginella, the nomenclatural issue, among others, is far from being resolved vis-à-vis Wan et al. (2023) and Zhou & Zhang (2023) since the latter recognized, for example, the genus name Didiclis. However, Didiclis was proposed for rejection in favor of Selaginella by Mazundar et al. (2018. Taxon 67: 442). This proposal was accepted by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (Applequist, 2022. Taxon 71: 219-227) and the General Committee (Wilson, 2023. Taxon 72: 422-424). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No matter whether the IBC will approve our proposal (Wan et al. 2023) to conserve Selaginella with a conserved type, S. flabellata (resolved in the former S. subg. Stachygynandrum), you can adopt or reject the Zhou & Zhang (2023) classification. The only difference is that if you adopt this new classification and the IBC disapproves the proposal, then the ca. 230 species of Selaginella s.s. from the New World all need to transfer to Stachygynandrum (ca. 225 new combinations are needed), which would not be a good idea. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I understand that it will be hard to have the majority of the votes to adopt our Zhou & Zhang (2023) classification of Selaginella. It is a dramatical deviation anyway from the current one-genus classification. However, future generations might find it informative and practical to recognize these deeply diverged (85-370 million years ago) lineages with different morphologies and distributions. The nomenclatural benefit of our Taxon proposal is obvious, if the new classification will be adopted (or in future); if the new classification will never be adopted, our Taxon proposal to choose a different type for Selaginella would do no harm at all to botany. PPG I (& II) adopted/will adopt 16-17 genera in Lycopodiaceae (380 spp.), 25 genera in Blechnaceae (ca. 265 spp.), 37 genera |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks, Joel, for your response. Yes, it takes time. It reminds me of the
segregates of Lycopodiaceae. In 1960s, 1980s when J. Holub described
Diphasiastrum, Lateristachys, Lycopodiella, Lycopodiastrum, Phlegmariurus,
Pseudodiphasium, Pseudolycopodiella, Pseudolycopodium, etc., few people
recognized them and often all the 350+ species were treated in Lycopodium
s.l. (and Huperzia) until 2014, >30 years later. PPG I recognized 16
genera, quite a bit of change!
---
Many thanks and best wishes, Libing
Li-Bing Zhang, Dr. nat., Curator, Missouri Botanical Garden
www.mobot.org/Li-Bing Zhang
<https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/plant-science/plant-science/research-staff/article/2628/zhang-li-bing>
…On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:25 AM Joel Nitta ***@***.***> wrote:
@gonggashan88 <https://github.com/gonggashan88> No, but that is a
separate matter. Taxonomy is based on both practicality and science. Just
because it is possible to split a group into many genera (and even may make
sense scientifically), it may not be practical to do so. There is a cost to
making wide-ranging taxonomic changes that is borne by the users of that
taxonomy. In the case of *Selaginella*, I am not convinced at the moment
that the need to split outweighs the cost. (That is not to say I could not
be convinced in the future; that is why we have discussions).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#29 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A6HTSGO3IQB4CEFXRSWS75TXY2ZVDANCNFSM6AAAAAA23AQ6FI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I understand that the timing of the IBC nomenclature meeting is a little
bit of concern. Regarding the Zhou & Zhang classification of
*Selaginella *(uncorrected
proof: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2023.07.003) and the Wan et al. 2023
Taxon proposal (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tax.12918), there
are four scenarios:
1. PPG II adopts the new classification + the IBC approves the Wan et
al. 2023 Taxon proposal: the ca. 230 New World names of *Selaginella *retain
(minimal name changes);
2. PPG II adopts the new classification + the IBC disapproves of the Wan
et al. 2023 Taxon proposal: the ca. 230 New World names of *Selaginella*
must be transferred to *Stachygynandrum *(maximal name changes);
3. PPG II rejects the new classification + the IBC approves the Wan et
al. 2023 Taxon proposal: only the type of *Selaginella *will be changed
to a different species, and nothing else; and
4. PPG II rejects the new classification + the IBC disapproves of the
Wan et al. 2023 Taxon proposal: nothing will be changed.
Conclusions:
1. The IBC decision will affect the name of one genus (*Selaginella
s.s. *and 230 species names in it) only; and
2. It will be in the best interest of our community to achieve the
maximal name stability if the IBC approves the Wan et al. 2023 Taxon
proposal.
PPG II might not adopt the new classification, but what about PPG III or
PPG IV? Next-generation scholars of *Selaginella* might recognize the
deeply diverged (up to 370 million yrs ago; FYI, all 24 polypods families
diverged after 175 mya, Du et al., 2021), morphologically diagnosable, and
geographically coherent lineages as genera. Also, up to now, at least 13
historical and recent (e.g., Weakley, 2012, 2022) taxonomic works have
already split *Selaginella s.l. *into several genera, no matter whether PPG
I or II adopted or will adopt them or not. I expect more and more people to
adopt them in the coming years/decades.
I don't think Selaginellales/Selaginellaceae/*Selaginella s.l. *(750+ spp.)
will be retained in one single genus forever.
…---
Best wishes, Libing
Li-Bing Zhang, Dr. nat., Curator, Missouri Botanical Garden
www.mobot.org/Li-Bing Zhang
<https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/plant-science/plant-science/research-staff/article/2628/zhang-li-bing>
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:11 PM Ashley Field ***@***.***> wrote:
@joelnitta <https://github.com/joelnitta> @schuettpelze
<https://github.com/schuettpelze> @crothfels
<https://github.com/crothfels> Is it possible for us to make a PPG policy
proposal regarding Nomenclature proposals and for the PPG II community to
vote on that policy? A policy proposal could be raised as a GitHub Issue
the same as a PPG II classification proposal and voted on it using the same
platform. Any prior classification proposals affected by the policy would
need to be listed and then if needed revisited.
I feel that voting on PPG II proposals for which there remain unresolved
Nomenclature proposals has issues, and for stability, I would prefer to
hold off until after the Nomenclature decision has been made. If that is
not available, we would essentially need two votes: a vote factoring the
Nomenclature proposal being sustained, and a vote factoring the
Nomenclature proposal being rejected.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#29 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A6HTSGNIBTTDRZVL2QB3TWLXY2J77ANCNFSM6AAAAAA23AQ6FI>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't know if this will help, but I agree that splitting Selaginella will likely happen and makes sense to some degree, there is a lot of variability in the genus and those working with it often use the subgenera to bring order into the chaos. So why not elevate these to genera? On the other hand, I feel that splitting the genus into 19 genera, some of which are ill-defined and have very few species may be too big a change at present. So, why not for now recognize the 7 subgenera as genera? If a proposal is made for recognition of the 19 genera, it may make sense to make an additional proposal for recognition of 7 genera. I don't know if this is possible, but maybe the two options can be presented in a single proposal? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am personally not in favor of splitting Selaginella, but posting this paper here in case folks want to discuss it:
Zhou X-M, Zhang L-B (2023) Phylogeny, character evolution, and classification of Selaginellaceae (lycophytes). Plant Diversity S2468265923001026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2023.07.003
PDF
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions