Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Acacia: The Case against Moving the Type to Australia

Melissa Luckow, Colin Hughes, Brian Schrire, Pieter Winter, Christopher Fagg, Renee Fortunato, Johan Hurter, Lourdes Rico, Frans J. Breteler, Anne Bruneau, Marta Caccavari, Lyn Craven, Mike Crisp, Alfonso Delgado S., Sebsebe Demissew, Jeffrey J. Doyle, Rosaura Grether, Stephen Harris, Patrick S. Herendeen, Héctor M. Hernández, Ann M. Hirsch, Richard Jobson, Bente B. Klitgaard, Jean-Noël Labat, Mike Lock, Barbara MacKinder, Bernard Pfeil, Beryl B. Simpson, Gideon F. Smith, Mario Sousa S., Jonathan Timberlake, Jos G. van der Maesen, A. E. Van Wyk, Piet Vorster, Christopher K. Willis, Jan J. Wieringa and Martin F. Wojciechowski
Taxon
Vol. 54, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 513-519
DOI: 10.2307/25065385
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25065385
Page Count: 7
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($14.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Acacia: The Case against Moving the Type to Australia
Preview not available

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that Acacia is polyphyletic and must be split into five genera. Proposal 1584 would retypify Acacia: the type of the Australian taxon A. penninervis would be conserved over the current lectotype (A. scorpioides) of an African taxon. We disagree with the recommendation of the Spermatophyte Committee to endorse this proposal. Contrary to Article 14.12 of the ICBN, no detailed case against conservation was presented in Proposal 1584. We maintain that there are strong arguments against conservation, such as the large number of countries that would be affected, the economic importance of the extra-Australian species, and the economic burden placed on developing countries. Acceptance of this proposal would also violate the guidelines for conservation which clearly state that the principle of priority should prevail when conservation for one part of the world would create disadvantageous change in another part of the world.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
513
    513
  • Thumbnail: Page 
514
    514
  • Thumbnail: Page 
515
    515
  • Thumbnail: Page 
516
    516
  • Thumbnail: Page 
517
    517
  • Thumbnail: Page 
518
    518
  • Thumbnail: Page 
519
    519