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.
History
Publication title
Australian Systematic Botany
Volume
28
Pagination
190-193
ISSN
1030-1887
Department/School
School of Natural Sciences
Publisher
CSIRO Publishing
Place of publication
150 Oxford St, Po Box 1139, Collingwood, Australia, Victoria, 3066