Bowmania
Taxonomy Should Follow Evidence, Not Convenience — The Case of Bowmania
Nannotax Commentary on Bowmania
The single-layered species are less well-documented but may prove useful. The forms with one reduced cycle M. murus and M. prinsii are important late Maastrictian markers. These forms show predomiantly tangential, rather than radial, c-axis orientations, and Varol (2025) suggests removing them to the genus Bowmania. This probably should be adopted but since they are important marker taxa we will consult further on this.
Taxonomy Should Follow Evidence, Not Convenience - The case of Bowmania
The Nannotax commentary acknowledges this proposal may well be correct, yet defers action pending unspecified "further consultation."
This reasoning is difficult to follow, and I would argue it is taxonomically unsound. If the morphological and crystallographic evidence supports reassignment to Bowmania, what precisely is the justification for delay? The commentary offers no answer. No consultees are named, no timeline is given, and no scientific criteria are identified that would resolve the question one way or the other.
More fundamentally, biostratigraphic utility is not a valid criterion for taxonomic decisions. Whether a species functions as a marker taxon is entirely irrelevant to whether it belongs in one genus or another. Taxonomy must follow evidence — morphology, phylogeny, crystallography — not the convenience of existing stratigraphic frameworks.
If the transfer to Bowmania is scientifically justified, it should be implemented. If it is not, the grounds for rejection should be stated clearly. Deferring a taxonomic decision because a species is "important" sets a troubling precedent and, frankly, obscures rather than advances our understanding.
Set number: 2053
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
10µm