Boomplantweek en die Internasionale Jaar van Woude - Dendro.co.za

DENDRON » No/Nr: 43 » November 2011
44
review
review
CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OF THE GENUS ACACIA
Arguments for Retypification
• Retypification allows for the conservation of some 72% of Acacia s.l. names. Thus greater
nomenclatural stability.
• Because Acacia s.s. contains many rare and endangered species, it is argued that a change to
Racosperma would have a severe impact on conservation literature and legislation.
• If Racosperma is adopted, the gender would change from feminine (Acacia) to neuter
(Racosperma).This will affect the termination of the specific epithet. The use of Vachellia and
Senegalia necessitate no gender changes as both are feminine.
• Because about half of Africa’s acacias are changing their names to Senegalia anyway, it would be
better and less confusing if all the naturally occurring acacias just change their names.
• Africa, Asia and the Americas will have to change their floras to accommodate Senegalia anyway.
• Australian species of Acacia are naturalized in many other parts of the world and will still impact
their floras if it is changed to Racosperma.
• The official floral emblem of Australia is that of an Acacia s.s.
• Acacia s.s. constitutes the largest genus of flowering plants on the Australian continent.
• Ecologically significant in Australian ecosystems.
• More Australian species are of global economic importance than African species.
• The Australian group is less likely to be subject to further generic splitting.
Arguments against Retypification
• No retypification will restrict the use of the name Acacia to about 12% of Acacia s.l. taxa.
• Retypfication and conservation of genus Acacia to an Australian type will impact many regional
floras around the globe.
• Retypfication and conservation of Acacia will impact a much larger part of the global population,
because Acacia s.s. has a relatively small global distribution when compared to Vachellia.
• Many species of Acacia s.s are narrow endemics and changing the names of narrow endemics has
a much smaller impact than changing the names of species with wide distributions.
• Retypification will benefit ca 20 million people in one country at the expense of over a billion
people in about 90 countries.
• Australian acacias are more commonly known as “wattles” and many will not connect it with
Acacia. Acacia, however, is used throughout Africa and Latin America as a common name.
• Many developing countries will be affected by the retypification, while it only benefits one
developed country.
• Retypification increases the already big economic burden of related name changes placed on
many developing countries.
• The ICBN’s guidelines for conservation of names will be violated by the retypification. It states
that the principle of priority should prevail when conservation for one part of the world creates a
disadvantageous situation in another part of the world.
• Retypification and conservation undermines the rules and guidelines of the ICBN, the principle of
priority in particular. This sets a bad precedent and erodes the authority of the ICBN.
• New combinations in Racosperma have been made for the vast majority of Australian species,
while only four combinations have been made in Vachellia (data current in 2005).
• Public perception of Acacia is that of a flat-topped tree in the African savannah.
• Most species of Vachellia are keystone species in their ecosystems.
• Recent split of Cassia into three genera: No one seems to be unhappy with the application of that
name to the smallest of the three genera.v
TABLE 5.–Summary of the argument presented for and against the retypification of Acacia. Information
compiled from Orchard & Maslin (2003); Luckow et al. (2005); Brummitt (2004) and Thiele et al. (2011).
Conclusion
The literature of such a large and ecologically
dominant genus such as Acacia s.l. is enormous and
any changes of nomenclature, be it to Vachellia or
Racosperma, is sure to have profound repercussions.
It will probably take several generations for the new
classification to be widely used and who knows if it will
still be considered current at that time. It is comforting
to know, however, that the ICBN does not prescribe
which classification system to use—that choice lies
References
BENTHAM, G. 1875. Revision of the suborder Mimoseae.
Transactions of the Linnaean Society 30: 444–533.
BOUCHENAK-KHELLADI, Y., MAURIN, O., HURTER, J. & VAN DER
BANK, M. 2010. The evolutionary history and biogeography of
Mimosoideae (Leguminosae): An emphasis on African acacias.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57: 495–508.
BRITTON, N.L. & BROWN, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the
northern United States, Canada and the British possessions, vol.
2. Scribner’s, New York.
BRUMMIT, R.K. 2004. Report of the committee for
Spermatophyta: 55. Proposal 1584 on Acacia. Taxon 53: 826–829.
CHOI, B.H. & OHASHI, H. 1998. (1377) Proposal to conserve
the name Hedysarum (Leguminosae: Papilioniodeae) with a
conserved type. Taxon 47: 877.
GREUTER, W., WAGENITZ, G., AGABABIAN, M. & HELLWIG,
F.H. 2001. (1509) Proposal to conserve the name Centaurea
(Compositae) with a conserved type. Taxon 50: 1201–1205.
HUGHES, C. 1997. (1297) Proposal to conserve the name
Leuceana (Leguminosae) with a conserved type. Taxon 46:
355–356.
KERGOAT, G.J., SILVIAN, J., BURANAPANICHPAN, S. & TUDA, M.
2006. When insects help to resolve plant phylogeny: evidence
for paraphyletic genus Acacia from the systematics and
host-plant range of their seed predators. Zoologica Scripta 36:
143–152.
LAWRENCE, E. (Ed.) 2005. Henderson’s dictionary of biology,
edn 13. Pearson education Ltd, Essex.
LUCKOW, M., HUGHES, C., SCHRIRE, B., WINTER, P., FAGG,
C.,FORTUNATO, R., HURTER, J., RICO, L., BRETELER, F.J.,
BRUNEAU, A., CACCAVARI, M., CRAVEN, L., CRISP,
M., DELGADO, A., DEMISSEW, S., DOYLE, J.J., GRETHER, R.,
HARRIS, S., HERENDEEN, P.S., HERNANDEZ, H.M., HIRSCH,
A.M., JOBSON, R., KLITGAARD, B.B., LABAT, J., LOCK, M.,
MACKINDER, B., PFEIL, B., SIMPSON, B.B., SMITH, G.F.,SOUSA,
M., TIMBERLAKE, J., VAN DER MAESEN, J.G., VAN WYK, A.E.,
CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OF THE GENUS ACACIA
review
review
with the end users of plant names and they now have
the opportunity to choose whether they want to use
the name Acacia in the strict or broad sense (Smith et
al. 2006). I will conclude this review (which has only
but scratched the surface) on the classification and
nomenclature of the genus Acacia s.l. with the following
ironic thought: After retypification, a group of plants
that do not have prominent thorns or spikes now lay
claim to the exclusive use of the name Acacia, derived
from the Greek word Akis, meaning sharp point.
VORSTER, P., WILLIS, C.K., WIERINGA, J.J. & WOJCIECHOWSKI,
M.F. 2005. Acacia: The case against moving the type to Australia.
Taxon 54: 513–519.
MASLIN, B.R., MILLER, J.T. & SEIGLER, D.S. 2003. Overview of
the generic status of Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae).
Australian Systematic Botany 16: 1–18.
MCNEILL, J., REDHEAD, S.A. & WIERSEMA, J.H. 2003. Guidelines
for proposals to conserve or reject names. Taxon 52: 182–184.
MILLER, P. 1754. The Gardener’s Dictionary, abridged edn. 4.
London.
ORCHARD, A.E. & MASLIN, B.R. 2003. (1584)Proposal to
conserve the name Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) with a
conserved type. Taxon 52: 362–363.
ORCHARD, A.E. & MASLIN, B.R. 2005. The case for conserving
Acacia with a new type. Taxon 54: 509–512.
PEDLEY, L. 1986. Derivation and dispersal of Acacia
(Leguminosae), with particular reference to Australia and the
recognition of Senegalia and Racosperma. Botanical journal of
the Linnaean Society 92: 219–254.
ROSS, J.H. 1979. A conspectus of the African Acacia species.
Memoirs of the botanical exploration of South Africa, no 40.
Botanical Research Institute.
ROSS, J.H. 2004. (1649) Proposal to conserve the name Bossiea
against Platylobium (Leguminosae). Taxon 53: 1075–1076.
SIMPSON, M.G. 2006. Plant Systematics. Elsevier academic
press, San Diego.
SMITH, G.F., VAN WYK, A.E, LUCKOW, M. & SCHRIRE, B. 2006.
Conserving Acacia Mill. with a conserved type. What happened
in Vienna? Taxon 55: 223–225.
THIELE, K.R., FUNK, V.A., IWATSUKI, K., MORAT, P., PENG, C.,
RAVEN, P.H., SARUKHAN, J. & SEBERG, O. 2011. The controversy
over the retypification of Acacia Mill. with an
Australian type: A pragmatic view. Taxon 60: 194–198.
VASSAL, J. 1981. Acacieae. In R.M. Polhill & P.H. Raven, Advances
in Legume Systematics, part 1. Kew Royal Botanic Gardens.
45
DENDRON » No/Nr: 43 » November 2011