Rebuttal to “(2943) Proposal to conserve <i>Selaginella</i>, nom. cons., (Selaginellaceae) with a conserved type”: An unwarranted and disruptive idea-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Rebuttal to “(2943) Proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., (Selaginellaceae) with a conserved type”: An unwarranted and disruptive idea

Published:2024-02-27 Issue:2 Volume:73 Page:573-585
ISSN:0040-0262
Container-title:TAXON
language:en
Short-container-title:TAXON

Author:

Valdespino Iván A.¹²³^ORCID,Korall Petra⁴^ORCID,Weststrand Stina⁵^ORCID,López Christian A.⁶^ORCID,Tang Jun‐Yong⁷^ORCID,Shalimov Alexander⁸^ORCID,Zhang Xian‐Chun⁹^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Departamento de Botánica, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Exactas y Tecnología Universidad de Panamá Campus Dr. Octavio Méndez Pereira, Transítsmica Panamá 0824‐00073 Panama

2. Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI) Clayton Ciudad del Saber, Edif 205 Panamá Panama

3. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Tupper Building – 401, Roosevelt Ave Panamá 0843‐03092 Panama

4. Systematic Biology, Department of Organismal Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Norbyvägen 18D 752 36 Uppsala Sweden

5. Gothenburg Botanical Garden, Carl Skottsbergs gata 22A, 413 19 Gothenburg Sweden and Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre Carl Skottsbergs gata 22B, 413 19 Gothenburg Sweden

6. Department of Integrative Biology University of Texas at Austin 2415 Speedway #C0930 Austin Texas 78712 U.S.A.

7. State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100093 China

8. South‐Siberian Botanical Garden Altai State University Lenina Pr., 61 Barnaul 656049 Russian Federation

9. State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100093 China

Abstract

AbstractA rebuttal to the proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., with a conserved type is submitted. We further discuss why this proposal is unwarranted and disruptive to nomenclatural stability as is the intention to split Selaginella since potentially segregated genera fail to reconcile monophyly and taxonomic diagnosability. Accordingly, we recommend the rejection of the Proposal (2943) and not to follow the dismembering of Selaginella.

Publisher

Wiley

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tax.13145

Reference142 articles.

1. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 72

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Classification of Selaginellaceae and responses to “Rebuttal to ‘(2943) Proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., (Selaginellaceae) with a conserved type’: An unwarranted and disruptive idea”;TAXON;2024-05-10