The New Zealand Plant Conservation Network

Hi Mike - no problem raising this issue again (you and others should do this) - more of a problem is my terrible typing - I was writing this whilst on the phone. I am sure that others will add to this debate. I am sure people will not agree with me. However, the key issue is informed discussion. Not blind acceptance. This happens with taxonomy all the time. For example I am in the throes of submitting a paper that splits our Kunzea into 10 endemic species. I am sure that will also cause debate and detraction. I expect that - but I am still doing my job putting out my ideas - remember formally recognised taxa are by and large merely hypotheses, ideas that need further testing to become established facts. The lumping of Hebe into Veronica is an idea, it just needs further testing. Have a good day. Peter

Phew indeed! Many of the points Peter makes are what I meant with "authors' justification for doing so was not sufficiently strong". I have also challenged one of the authors on their treatment and still remain unconvinced, particularly that they could not find one morphological character to separate the genera. I'm not aware of any plant genera (or even family) that can be separated on the basis of just one character.

The important lesson is as Peter said - taxonomy is a science and the output is a hypothesis which those involved in botany need to critically evaluate on its merits.