Premium
A suggested compromise on the nomenclature of Acacia
Author(s) -
Turland Nicholas J.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.1002/tax.603034
Subject(s) - compromise , citation , saint , nomenclature , library science , computer science , law , art history , history , biology , botany , political science , taxonomy (biology)
There is no doubt that the dispute over the type of Acacia Mill. (see, e.g., Moore & al. in Taxon 60: [this issue.] 2011, this issue) will be among the most controversial topics discussed at the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne. I fear that this issue will not be resolved whether the current type of Acacia (A. penninervis Sieber ex DC.), as listed in the Vienna Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006), is confirmed or whether the first designated type (A. scorpioides (L.) W.F. Wight) is restored. Either result would be a victory for one side and a defeat for the other. If that were to happen, especially if a vote deciding the issue were passed by only a narrow margin, negative feelings could result, potentially lasting for years, damaging relationships within our botanical community and projecting a poor image of us to the wider world. Such a situation could be avoided if an unusual solution could be found to the seemingly intractable Acacia problem, as requested by Linder & Crisp (in Taxon 60: 570–571. 2011); a solution that could attract support from both sides of the dispute as well as from those who have no strong opinion on the issue but wish to see the matter resolved. Some might regard the proposal by Brummitt (in Taxon 59: 1925–1926. 2010 [Art. 51 Prop. A]) as one such solution, while others might not; its pros and cons have been discussed by the Rapporteurs in the Synopsis of Proposals (McNeill & Turland in Taxon 60: 273–274. 2011). The present proposal is offered as an additional option for the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne to debate. The potential solution proposed here is suggested as a compromise. It would permit the name Acacia to be used only for the genus in its broad sense, i.e., including species from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australasia. When more narrow genera are defined, what is currently called Vachellia Wight & Arn. (Acacia before the Vienna Congress) would be called Protoacacia Mill., while the genus currently called Acacia (Racosperma Mart. before the Vienna Congress) would be called Austroacacia Mill., thereby allowing continued use of the widely used and highly valued name Acacia—albeit with a prefix—in both its pre-Vienna and post-Vienna applications.