User talk:Michael Goodyear

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sempervivella

Hello Michael. I am not disagreeing with your edit on the synonymy for Sempervivum. I can not find a definitive treatment for Sempervivella. Govaerts holds it to be a synonym for Sempervivum, whereas Hassler begs to differ and holds to an expanded Rosularia alpestris subsp. alpestris. Do you have references that mean these differing treatments are not simply taxonomic opinions? It is only a couple of species, so is not important, I guess. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sempervivella was one of Berger's (1930) genera in Crassulaceae, placing it and Rosularia in Sedoideae, while placing Sempervivum in Sempervivoideae. In 1978, on grounds of morphology, Ohba (1978) submerged it in Rosularia. Subsequently, molecular analysis ('t Hart 1995) confirmed this, showing that it segregated in the Leucosedum clade, with Prometheum and Rosularia, but not Sempervivum. Subsequently no author has treated it separately. Thiede and Eggli (2007) do not even mention it, although placing Prometheum and Rosularia in separate subclades. Sempervivum is only distantly related, being in the Sempervivum clade. So, the latter synonym is definitely wrong. Sometimes I wonder where people like Govaerts and Hassler actually get their information from. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

So Hassler is probably correct for this. As Govaerts works at RBG Kew and Hassler at The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, I do not question their credentials or expertise. Of course there are errors in their databases, but less than WS! Both are quick to review and correct, if required and if they think a correction is not warranted they will patiently explain their reasoning. The biggest problem I have with Govaert's POWO is their complete acceptance of circumscriptions in Christenhusz, M.J.M., Fay, M.F. & Byng, J.W. 2018. The Global Flora, Vol. 4: Special Edition. For example. Capparaceae. Taxonomic opinions exist, that's life. Andyboorman (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I don’t doubt anyone’s credentials, but they can’t be held personally responsible for everyone of hundreds of thousands of taxa. They never point to the evidence, and some of this may have not been checked for decades. It is very easy for misinformation to be simply copied. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See also, in ‘’Rosularia’’ (Wikipedia), paper by Sarwar 2012. A quick read of the introduction could be the source of the error. Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Got another one for you! Prometheum and Chaloupkaea, Govaerts accepts the later, but Hassler does not! Taxonomic opinion, I guess as both use Chaloupkaea Niederle, Skalničkářův rok 73: 16. (2016) REF. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks. Not at all surprised, I am an evidence based scientist. I will get to it eventually! Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This one seems to have gained some traction in a relatively short time. I have noted that Kew can be quite responsive to the taxonomic literature, but at other times quite resistant. Maybe it depends on people requesting a revision. I have started to document the taxonomic history on this one. Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And then there are the ferns

Ferns - another disagreement between Christenhusz & Chase and specialists. See the Taxon 2018 references on Polypodiopsida. Don't you just love it, the same evidence, but diametrically different conclusions. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit outside my experience, but I am not surprised. I have not looked at that area for some time. If I turn up anything of use, after sorting out Saxifragales, I will let you know.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I last did a major revision of ferns for WP in 2017, I did not think I needed to revisit this quite so soon. So, thanks for bringing those two articles to my attention. This is a bit different to our previous problem. This is a dispute over the philosophy of taxonomic revision, lumpers and splitters, and the question of nomenclatural stability. Christenhusz describes it as generalists vs specialists, but he is President of the International Association of Pteridologists. It is a necessary debate that extends throughout taxonomy, and both sides have good points. It reminds us that unlike phylogeny, the taxonomic revision that frequently follows is by no means an exact science. I had hoped that like APG PPG would bring this issue to a close. For the time being we just have to accept that there are two competing systems, just like in pre APG. It is not a total disaster. They agree on the main divisions, and in many cases the differences, which are basically familial and generic circumscription are a question of rank, rather than the distribution of names within a rank, eg subfamilies vs families. Hopefully it will eventually be resolved either by concensus or by mandate.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And the only major departure at ordinal level is the subdivision of Polypodiales.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)