Talk:Nothofagus
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Sect.
[edit]For the uninitiated the term Sect. should be clarified. Alan Liefting 07:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Species list
[edit]This page needs to be completely revamped. Nothofagus no longer exists in New Zealand; the species were reclassified in December 2013; see [1] for background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.119.178 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Should the species list in the txo box be moved into the main article. Alan Liefting 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think so - the taxo box is somewhat incomplete... However, lists always look ugly to me, any ideas how we could improve on this? Read has a nice phylogeny chart which we might be able to copy. ('might' here refers to technical issues, not copyright) njh 09:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- On the otherhand, having the species in the taxobox might make automation easier in the future. njh 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
New genera
[edit]As this article says, the new genera (Lophozonia, Fuscospora etc.) have not been accepted outside New Zealand. For example, see:
or
https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomydetail.aspx?id=467524
They were New Zealanders, who changed the nomenclature. As Nothofagus exists at least in six countries outside New Zealand (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, France (New Caledonia), Australia, Chile, Argentina), Nothofagus should still be the genus name in Wikipedia. Thus, all the species articles, at least the species outside New Zealand, should be edited and the old names restored. Probably someone from New Zealand changed the genus names in Wikipedia. Now tree enthusiasts around the world are wondering, what is the valid name. Krasanen (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have suggested to the editor (Its-mrb) who made the moves to other genera, that the species not occurring in New Zealand should remain in Nothofagus articles. Lophozonia menziesii and four Fuscospora articles should include a note that authorities in countries other than New Zealand list the name as a synonym. I would appreciate other editors' opinions. Gderrin (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not without a horse in this race (full disclosure: I am the Smissen in Smissen and Heenan), but there are several points I believe I can make here. 1. It is factually incorrect to say that the taxonomic changes proposed by Heenan & Smissen have not been accepted outside of New Zealand. A number of articles published in reputable international journals based outside of New Zealand and with authors not connected with Smissen or Heenan accept this change (eg https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.1097, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-017-0061-x, https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2019.1574490, many more can be found). It may be correct to say that some "authorities" do not accept this change. It is also true that the changes proposed by Heenan and Smissen have not been without controversy in New Zealand. The sources (npgsweb.ars, biodiversity.org.au cited above) illustrate that some sources outside New Zealand do not accept these changes, but that is logically very different from concluding that no sources outside NZ accept the changes! 2. Heenan and Smissen did not "change the nomenclature", but they are the only authors who have properly reviewed it (ever). 3. There is nothing at all wrong or improper about names in Nothofagus and it is OK for the editors of this page to stick with them (like you need my permission :)). Names in Nothofagus and the segregate genera in current use are both fine and usually unambiguous in their application (except for fossils). It is certainly true that names in Nothofagus for species classified by some in Fuscospora, Lophozonia or Trisyngyne are in current usage throughout the world. 4. Generic boundaries in Nothofagus prior to Heenan and Smissen (ie inclusion of the tropical species) were established by Cornelis van Steenis from the Netherlands where there are no Nothofagaceae. Why does it matter that the recent changes taxonomic originate in New Zealand (where there are Nothofagaceae)? 5. It would be better for all concerned if the New Zealand species were treated the same in Wikipedia as those in other countries. That is if "all the species articles, at least the species outside New Zealand, should be edited and the old names restored" is accepted, then names in Nothofagus for Fuscospora and Lophozonia should also be preferred for New Zealand species. Leonotopodium (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Leonotopodium: Hello Rob and thanks for your comments. My understanding is that in plant articles we must use authorities like the Australian Plant Census[1], World Checklist of Selected Plant Families[2], Plants of the World Online[3] or World Flora Online[4]. All these botanical authorities either list Fuscospora, Lophozonia and Trisyngyne as synonyms of Nothofagus or do not list the name at all.
- If I have misunderstood you, please clarify. There is no doubt that the Nothofagus page needs some work.Gderrin (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Leonotopodium: Hello Rob and thanks for your comments. My understanding is that in plant articles we must use authorities like the Australian Plant Census[1], World Checklist of Selected Plant Families[2], Plants of the World Online[3] or World Flora Online[4]. All these botanical authorities either list Fuscospora, Lophozonia and Trisyngyne as synonyms of Nothofagus or do not list the name at all.
Seems like a reasonable policy. I dont take those global lists too seriously, but they aren't idiots and they're doing a far better job than I would when it comes to what they cover. I think you understand me fine. As long as a consistent taxonomy is followed I am chill. cheers Rob Leonotopodium (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)