The New Zealand Plant Conservation Network

The Landcare Research database gives Veronica as the preferred name. Is NZPCN intending to adopt Veronica as the genus name for Hebe spp.?
I'm currently updating some teaching material and would appreciate advice on which way to go.
Thanks in advance,
Mike

I'm sure someone much better qualified than I will chip in but below is a link to one source for the rationale to the classification change (Page 22), I also recall seeing a counter argument recently but I don't know where. I find Hebe, Chionohebe Heliohebe, Parahebe and Veronica useful divisions especially when reading or hearing about a species I am not familiar with as it gives me an instant idea as to what sort of plant it is and I will continue to use them at least in my field notes: Veronica sp. is less than informative.
http://www.wellingtonbotsoc.org.nz/newsletters/WBS-news-0709.pdf

Thanks for you input Graeme. I've been reluctant to change my teaching material to Veronica as NZPCN continues with Hebe and I refer students to the site. I was wondering if I had missed an important counter revisionary paper arguing for for the retention of Hebe. I'll wait and see if we get any further response. I note the site was quick to change from Nothofgus to Fuscospora.

Hi Mike, opinion is divided on the correct way to treat Hebe and allied genera in NZ. The most recent treatment placed them all in Veronica along with some other southern hemisphere genera. Some botanists feel that the authors' justification for doing so was not sufficiently strong and that putting these genera into Veronica is obscures some very interesting biogeographic relationships. These species have validly published names within both Hebe (Parahebe etc) and Veronica and to some degree it is up to individual botanists to make up their own mind on the debate. The members within NZPCN who write the species description (myself included) are in favour of retaining Hebe etc and so this is the treatment used here. Not all members in NZPCN (or other botanists) will agree with this. Time will tell what approach becomes favoured and in general acceptance. For your teaching material maybe you can say that this is an example of when scientists disagree?

Hi Mike - I was away so have only now just had a chance to answer this question. Graham and Mike Thorsen have done an excellent job of answering it already from their perspective. The salient points ythough are that: 1., Unless a ruling has been made under the code for Algae, Fungi and Plants on a name you are free to use whatever name you wish (so Mike use what makes sense to you as no ruling on this has been made), 2., the hypothesis that Hebe and its allies should be merged into Veronica is just that - an hypothesis, and its one that many of us feel needs further testing using multiple lines of evidence - not just DNA and cladistic rhetoric to back that up, and 3., until this is done we, as people concerned with protecting and restoring New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity, feel that the wholesale shift to Veronica is premature and 'unhelpful' in terms of our contribution to global diversity. That's part of our opinion...more follows.

Continued....the debate over Veronica vs Hebe is not new, and it is akin to an atheist and evangelist trying to reach a perfect agreement. You are not going to get this. However there are parallel studies that you could consider to make your mind up. For example when Cheesemania and Ischnocarpus was merged into Pachycladon DNA data wa snot the prime reason, but a detailed study of the morphology, ontogeny, cytology and behavior of experimental hybrids was also used. This has not yet been done for Hebe and its allies - though bits of it have, bits which could also be cited as evidence supporting the maintaining of these genera. Last year a paper splitting Nothofagus was published - that paper provided a more than adequate summation of such data to justify its end. We have yet to see such a paper for the Veronica vs Hebe debate. Many opinions have been published on the Veronica issue and these are nicely summarised in de Lange & Rolfe (2010) - see next...

Continued.... - the full reference is - de Lange, P.J.; Rolfe, J.R. 2010: New Zealand Indigenous Vascular Plant Checklist. Wellington, New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. 164pp. - and you can purchase this publication from the NZPCN. In that book are a number of arguments and references to other people's arguments as well which I advise you follow up and then make your own decision. Personally I rather enjoyed the late Dick Brummitt's excellent paper 'Am I bony fish?' which explores the whole wonderful world of cladistic thinking. Of course a big factor that drives out New Zealand flora is hybridisation, and this reticulation also muddies waters if using DNA evidence as your sole (or main) line of evidence. Consider this, if we decide that Hebe is Veronica then the same arguments challenge the validity of accepting Homo and Pan as distinct lineages, and further all daisy genera should be collapsed into one genus Aster...

Also one of the more hilarious arguments used to justify the current lumping was the view that in the Northern Hemisphere it was found that Veronica showed cryptic DNA variation indicating multiple lineages rather than one monophyletic Veronica. However, morphologically and cytological there was no basis to split the lineages from Veronica as new genera. It was argued that do so, would create confusion for poor farmers who wanted a weed killer to kill a Veronica in their paddocks, and if these splits were done the poor person selling the weed killer would need to ask which genus the farmer wanted killed. That comment justified the lumping of Hebe at its allies into Veronica. When I queries this bizarre statement s one respected scientist working from the Jodrel Lab (Kew) told me ( I respect the man so won't give his name), 'Actually we don't care as Hebe don't occur in the northern hemisphere". Hmmm - try explaining to a Chatham Islander that the massive tree in their bush with parea..

..nesting in it is the same as the weedy Veronica they are trying to eradicate from their garden. Same argument other way round. FINALLY (phew) people get all hung up about 'preferred names'. This pointless phrase DOES NOT mean you as an 'end user' are required to use that name, it merely means that the person(s) who designed whatever database you are consulting believe that such a name is the one they most like to use. UNLESS that name has been conserved (i.e. ruled on) you are not required to use it. You will note that NZPCN does not use such a phrase. Ultimately as a name 'consumer' consider 'Caveat Emptor" Mike - use the name that most makes sense to you. Don't be tricked into using names because some else 'prefers them'. Read the evidence and make your own decision. I could say more, but I have said enough I think. Good luck. Ciao. Peter

Many thanks Peter. This provides me with erudite expert opinion for retaining Hebe in my course teaching materials. In practical terms this is the most parsimonious course of action as it avoids many hours of meticulous editing. I hope to include elements of this discussion as a case study for my students. Sorry to raise the issue again. Cheers, Mike