Talk:Myricaceae
Latest comment: 12 days ago by Andyboorman
APGIII, Tropicos and Kew recognise three genera - Canacomyrica, Comptonia, and Myrica, with Morella circumscribed in Myrica. See ref section over. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Parra-O, C. (2002) needs to be retained as a reference as it was the first paper to propose the resurrection of Morella. Andyboorman (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Andyboorman: - 9 years on, I see POWO still retain this 3-genus circumscription. Can you ask them if they have good evidence for the inclusion of Morella in Myrica, such as Morella being clearly polyphyletic with respect to Myrica, or is it just tradition / inertia? At least three papers strongly suggest otherwise, with Huguet et al. 2005, Herbert 2005, and Liu et al. 2015 all strongly supporting recognition of Morella. If POWO are going to continue rejecting this view, they need to cite some recent studies supporting their 3-genus view. POWO also have a problem in that Morella rivas-martinezii (described in Herbert 2005) does not have a valid combination in Myrica. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF:. I will ask, but If the topology of Huguet et al. (2005) holds, then "the limits of Myrica will have to be either expanded or contracted" (Stevens in APW, 2024). It appears nothing definitive has been produced and I assume Kew are holding back. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Andyboorman: thanks! If I'm reading Huguet's Fig 1 right, treating Comptonia as a genus leaves Myrica s.l. paraphyletic. Is that what Stevens means by expanding Myrica? Do you have a link for Stevens 2024 please? - MPF (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: Kew sees this as a taxonomic opinion to accept or reject Morella as a segregate. The evidence to date is not definitive and contradictory. Unfortunately, this leaves Morella rivas-martinezii as an unplaced name. Some botanist do accept the genus, but plenty do not. Chinese botanists seem the most ready to accept the genus, probably as many plants have significance in Chinese medicine and culture. Given the highly disjunct distribution of the family, it is in need of further research. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Andyboorman: thanks again! There's an awful self-fulfilling circularity there; 'plenty do not' accept it, because they follow POWO who don't accept it, then POWO don't accept it, because 'plenty' don't, and so it goes around, and around. It ends up being a brave person to dare to disagree and say "well, actually our evidence is that Myrica is more closely related to Comptonia, than it is to Morella", or to say that "Morella is very distinct from Myrica in multiple morphological and ecological features", because to say so is to contradict God. One thing for sure, there is nothing on POWO to suggest that it is a taxonomic opinion to accept or reject; Morella is given a bald statement "This name is a synonym of Myrica" without any hint that this is a disputable opinion, rather than an indisputable absolute fact. It would be good if POWO could be more open about such things! - MPF (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The link for Stevens is
{{APW}}. Unfortunately you can not go straight to the Myricaceae page, but have to start at Fagales and click on the family link. I am a fan of this page as the Reference List is brillant! You can see that the curators of this site are also circumspect about the family relationships, although they now accept 4 genera. Andyboorman (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: Kew sees this as a taxonomic opinion to accept or reject Morella as a segregate. The evidence to date is not definitive and contradictory. Unfortunately, this leaves Morella rivas-martinezii as an unplaced name. Some botanist do accept the genus, but plenty do not. Chinese botanists seem the most ready to accept the genus, probably as many plants have significance in Chinese medicine and culture. Given the highly disjunct distribution of the family, it is in need of further research. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Andyboorman: thanks! If I'm reading Huguet's Fig 1 right, treating Comptonia as a genus leaves Myrica s.l. paraphyletic. Is that what Stevens means by expanding Myrica? Do you have a link for Stevens 2024 please? - MPF (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF:. I will ask, but If the topology of Huguet et al. (2005) holds, then "the limits of Myrica will have to be either expanded or contracted" (Stevens in APW, 2024). It appears nothing definitive has been produced and I assume Kew are holding back. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow editors,
I have just modified 1 external links on Myricaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807124735/http://data.kew.org/cgi-bin/vpfg1992/genlist.pl?MYRICACEAE to http://data.kew.org/cgi-bin/vpfg1992/genlist.pl?MYRICACEAE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)