We present the case that the fossil record of Nothofagaceae, which is much more extensive in terms of species numbers than the living species, cannot be dealt with in a productive way by the recent proposal by Heenan and Smissen to split Nothofagus into four genera (Phytotaxa, vol. 146, http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.146.1.1). Such a proposal will render the fossil record almost unworkable, and will lead to a major split in the approach taken by palynologists in comparison to other researchers. We believe the case for the new generic names, while valid, is weak, and is far outweighed by the utility of retaining Nothofagus sensu lato.
|Journal||Australian Systematic Botany|
|Publication status||Published - 2015|