Majority rules, when systematists disagree
Timothy J. Entwisle A B and Peter H. Weston AA Botanic Gardens Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: tim.entwisle@rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
Australian Systematic Botany 18(1) 1-6 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB04013
Submitted: 3 June 2004 Accepted: 9 September 2004 Published: 29 March 2005
Abstract
The creation of Australia’s Virtual Herbarium forced the Australian plant systematics community to find a mechanism for deciding between alternative taxonomies. Following a workshop on the Orchidaceae and the publication of some simple draft guidelines, a set of ‘rules of thumb’ are presented here that we believe represent the view of most practising systematists. Not everyone will agree, and we have provided alternative views where possible. We include the need for monophyletic taxa, minimising taxonomic change, understanding that some taxa have strong ‘interest groups’, making it clear that ‘preferred name’ does not necessarily imply ‘best name’ on all criteria, avoiding epithets used in possible congeners, and the concept of ‘majority rules’ when states and territories have differing views.
Acknowledgments
On 28 March 2003, TJ Entwisle facilitated a workshop (held at Mount Annan Botanic Garden, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust) on behalf of the Council of Heads of Australian Herbaria to assist in the preparation of a Consensus Census for Australia’s Virtual Herbarium. We thank Bob Makinson—Botanic Gardens Trust (BGT) — who prepared the notes from that meeting, and to all other participants of the workshop (which included the second author): Judy West, Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Canberra (CPBR); Mark Clements, CPBR; David Jones, CPBR; Steve Hopper, Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, Perth; Neville Walsh, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne; David Banks, Non-government sector, Sydney; Wayne Harri, Queensland Herbarium; Annette Wilso, Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra; Jim Croft, CPBR; Bob Makinson, BGT. Peter Lavarack provided a written submission to the workshop.
Brooker I
(2000) A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus L’Her. (Myrtaceae). Australian Systematic Botany 13, 79–148.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clements MA
(2003) Molecular phylogenetic systematics in the Dendrobiinae (Orchidaceae), with emphasis on Dendrobium section Pedilonum. Telopea 10, 247–298.
Crane PR
(1985) Phylogenetic analysis of seed plants and the origin of angiosperms. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 72, 716–793.
Crisp MD, Chandler GT
(1996) Paraphyletic species. Telopea 6, 813–844.
Entwisle TJ
(1989) Psilosiphon scoparium gen. et sp. nov. (Lemaneaceae, Rhodophyta): a new red alga from eastern Australian streams. Phycologia 28, 469–475.
Entwisle TJ
(2002) Report from CHAH. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 111, 2–3.
Entwisle TJ
(2003) Report from CHAH. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 114, 25–26.
Entwisle TJ,
Vis ML, Macpherson H
(2004) Batrachospermum pseudogelatinosum (Batrachospermales, Rhodophyta), a polyecious paraspecies from Australia and New Zealand. Australian Systematic Botany 17, 17–28.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Greuter, W (2000). ‘International code of botanical nomenclature (St Louis code): adopted by the sixteenth international botanical congress, St Louis, Missouri, July–August 1999.’ ((Regnum Vegetabile 138, Koeltz Scientific Books: Königstein))
Hennig, W (1966). ‘Ground plan of a theory of phylogenetic systematics.’ (University of Illinois Press: Chicago)
Hoot SB, Douglas AW
(1998) Phylogeny of the proteaceae based on atpB and atpB-rbcL intergenic spacer region sequences. Australian Systematic Botany 11, 301–320.
| Crossref |
Jacobs, SWL ,
Everett, J ,
Barkorth, ME ,
and
Hsiao, C (2000). Relationships within the stipoid grasses (Graminae). In ‘Grasses, systematics and evolution’. pp. 75–82. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)
Ladiges PY, Udovicic F
(2000) Comment on a new classification of the eucalypts. Australian Systematic Botany 13, 149–152.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mole BJ
(2004) Preliminary phylogeny of Phebalium (Rutaceae: Boronieae) and its allies based on the nrDNA regions ITS 1 + 2. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 118, 7–10.
Necchi O, Entwisle TJ
(1990) A reappraisal of the generic and subgeneric classification in the Batrachospermaceae (Rhodophyta). Phycologia 29, 478–488.
Nelson, G (1989). Species and taxa: systematics and evolution. In ‘Speciation and its consequences’. pp. 60–81. (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland)
Sheath RG,
Mueller KM,
Vis ML, Entwisle TJ
(1996) A re-examination of the morphology, ultrastructure and classification of genera in the Lemaneaceae (Batrachospermales, Rhodophyta). Phycological Research 44, 233–246.
Sennblad B, Bremer B
(2002) Classification of Apocynanceae s.l. according to a new approach combining Linnean and phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology 51, 389–409.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Soltis DE,
Soltis PS, Zanis MJ
(2002) Phylogeny of seed plants based on evidence from eight genes. American Journal of Botany 89, 1670–1681.
Scotland RW, Sanderson MJ
(2004) The significance of few versus many in the tree of life. Science 303, 643.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Vis ML,
Saunders GW,
Sheath RG,
Dunse K, Entwisle TJ
(1998) Phylogeny of the Batrachospermates (Rhodophyta) inferred from rbcL and 18S ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Journal of Phycology 34, 341–350.
| Crossref |
Wheeler QD, Nixon KC
(1990) Another way of looking at the species problem: a reply to de Queiroz and Donoghue. Cladistics 6, 77–81.
Wilson PG
(1998) New species and nomenclatural changes in Phebalium and related genera (Rutaceae). Nuytsia 12, 267–288.
Yukawa, T ,
Kita, K ,
and
Handa, T (2000). DNA phylogeny and morphological diversification of Australian Dendrobium (Orchidaceae). In ‘Monocots: systematics and evolution’. pp. 465–471. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)
