TY - JOUR
T1 - Why we should retain Nothofagus sensu lato
AU - Hill, Robert S.
AU - Jordan, Gregory J.
AU - Macphail, Michael K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© CSIRO 2015.
PY - 2015/11/13
Y1 - 2015/11/13
N2 - We present the case that the fossil record of Nothofagaceae, which is much more extensive in terms of species numbers than the living species, cannot be dealt with in a productive way by the recent proposal by Heenan and Smissen to split Nothofagus into four genera (Phytotaxa, vol. 146, http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.146.1.1). Such a proposal will render the fossil record almost unworkable, and will lead to a major split in the approach taken by palynologists in comparison to other researchers. We believe the case for the new generic names, while valid, is weak, and is far outweighed by the utility of retaining Nothofagus sensu lato.
AB - We present the case that the fossil record of Nothofagaceae, which is much more extensive in terms of species numbers than the living species, cannot be dealt with in a productive way by the recent proposal by Heenan and Smissen to split Nothofagus into four genera (Phytotaxa, vol. 146, http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.146.1.1). Such a proposal will render the fossil record almost unworkable, and will lead to a major split in the approach taken by palynologists in comparison to other researchers. We believe the case for the new generic names, while valid, is weak, and is far outweighed by the utility of retaining Nothofagus sensu lato.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947048907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1071/SB15026
DO - 10.1071/SB15026
M3 - Review article
SN - 1030-1887
VL - 28
SP - 190
EP - 193
JO - Australian Systematic Botany
JF - Australian Systematic Botany
IS - 3
ER -