@article{fdi:010090212,
  title = {{R}ebuttal to {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odríguez's (2831) proposal to conserve {E}xostema against {C}outarea ({R}ubiaceae) and to their expanded circumscription of {E}xostema},
  author = {{D}elprete, {P}iero and {P}audyal, {S}. {K}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{P}audyal & al. performed the most comprehensive phylogenetic study of the tribe {C}hiococceae ({R}ubiaceae) using two nuclear and two plastid datasets, and resolved four well-supported main clades. {W}ithin {C}lade {B}, {P}audyal & al. recognized the genera {E}xostema, {H}intonia, {C}outareopsis, {M}otleyothamnus, {C}outarea, {A}dolphoduckea, and {S}olenandra. {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odriguez interpreted the internal clades of {C}lade {B} differently, and instead treated the entire {C}lade {B} as the broadly expanded, morphologically diverse genus {E}xostema. {I}n addition, because the genus {C}outarea is positioned within {C}lade {B} and its name has nomenclatural priority over {E}xostema, {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odriguez presented a formal proposal (proposal 2831) to conserve the name {E}xostema against {C}outarea. {W}e strongly disagree with {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odriguez naming the entire {C}lade {B} of {P}audyal & al. as a widely circumscribed {E}xostema, and with their proposal to conserve the name {E}xostema against {C}outarea for the following reasons: (1) their wide delimitation of {E}xostema and their proposal to reject {C}outarea vs. {E}xostema are and will cause wide disruption in nomenclatural stability of traditional and current usage of generic and specific names within the {C}hiococceae; (2) their broad synonymisation under {E}xostema s.l. entails the lumping of six genera ({C}outarea, {A}dolphoduckea, {C}outareopsis, {M}otleyothamnus, {H}intonia, {S}olenandra) into a broadly distributed, highly polymorphic genus, decreasing the value of diagnostic information for each distinct monophyletic taxon and reducing the systematic and morphological information of the species; (3) each of the seven "{C}lade {B}" genera of {P}audyal & al. corresponds to a well-resolved clade with a unique set of morphological characters; (4) {P}audyal & al.'s genera of {C}lade {B} have been accepted by numerous {R}ubiaceae specialists and managers of specialized websites; (5) the broad expansion of {E}xostema proposed by {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odriguez does not fulfill the principle of maximizing the ease of identification of the c. 40 species included in such a highly polymorphic genus, increasing the difficulty of species identification by the botanical community. {I}n conclusion, we advise the {N}omenclature {C}ommittee to reject {G}reuter & {R}ankin-{R}odriguez's proposal to conserve the generic name {E}xostema against {C}outarea.},
  keywords = {{C}hiococceae ; {C}outarea ; {E}xostema ; genus-level classification ; {R}ubiaceae ; phylogeny ; {AMERIQUE} {CENTRALE} ; {AMERIQUE} {DU} {SUD} ; {PACIFIQUE} {ILES} ; {ZONE} {TROPICALE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{T}axon},
  volume = {72},
  numero = {5},
  pages = {1098--1108},
  ISSN = {0040-0262},
  year = {2023},
  DOI = {10.1002/tax.13056},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010090212},
}