Rebuttal to “(2943) Proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., (Selaginellaceae) with a conserved type”: An unwarranted and disruptive idea

Abstract

A rebuttal to the proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., with a conserved type is submitted. We further discuss why this proposal is unwarranted and disruptive to nomenclatural stability as is the intention to split Selaginella since potentially segregated genera fail to reconcile monophyly and taxonomic diagnosability. Accordingly, we recommend the rejection of the Proposal (2943) and not to follow the dismembering of Selaginella.

Classification of Selaginellaceae and responses to “Rebuttal to ‘(2943) Proposal to conserve Selaginella, nom. cons., (Selaginellaceae) with a conserved type’: An unwarranted and disruptive idea”

“…(2023) proposal would do no harm to science but only change the type of the genus. Valdespino & al. (2024) have just published a rebuttal to the Wan & al.…”

“…Their rebuttal appears scientifically problematic and the paper itself seems to be full of issues, which we would like to respond to. Valdespino & al. (2024) do not seem to have understood the nomenclatural benefit of the Wan & al.…”

“…One of the biggest misleading claims by Valdespino & al. (2024) is that they say, "since potentially segregated genera fail to reconcile monophyly […]" (page 573: Abstract).…”

“…This is simply not true, because all genera recognized by Zhou & Zhang (2023) are phylogenetically monophyletic. In nowhere Valdespino & al. (2024) mentioned which genus/ genera recognized by Zhou & Zhang (2023) is/are not monophyletic.…”

“…'s (2018) lumping of all 24 then-recognized genera in Grammitidoideae into Grammitis Sw. (Polypodiaceae) or all 22 cheilanthoid genera into Hemionitis L. (Pteridaceae). Four out of the seven authors of the Valdespino & al. (2024) paper are coauthors of the PPG I (2016) classification, which recognized all these segregates as genera.…”