Box 1. Why many seaweed experts do not want to call all fucoids
‘rockweeds’
Below are quotations from seaweed experts (friends, colleagues, editors,
and reviewers) stating their reasons for why previous versions of our
viewpoint, submitted to different marine-oriented journals, should be
rejected.
“It seems to me absurd to call rockweeds the floating Sargassum
natans/fluitans , which have nothing to do with rock”.
Reply: We agree with this logical objection but note that
pelagic Sargassums are anomalies in the Fucales being only 2
out of >550 species that create evolutionary persistent
floating forests. All biological classification has anomalies that can
motivate discussions about what is ‘normal’. In Fucales, the pelagicSargassum natans/fluitans and epiphytic Nothiea anomalaare atypical, but fucoids none-the-less.
“I’m not a fan of using rockweed for subtidal fucoids which I think fit
more in the kelp forest category”.
Reply: Most researchers do not consider all fucoids as kelps
(typically true kelp = Laminariales), and to include all fucoids under
the kelp umbrella creates new inconsistencies with well-known
intertidal (like Fucus, Ascophyllum, Hormosira,Cystophora) and pelagic (Sargassum
natans/fluitans) fucoids, that virtually never are considered
as ‘kelp’ in the scientific literature.
“I think that there are plenty of fucoids with common names that the
general public really relate to e.g., crayweed, Neptune’s necklace, bull
kelp and it would be a shame to lose these at the expense of broader
names and support”.
Reply. Calling all fucoids for rockweeds would not affect
common species names. Common names have hierarchical organizations
just like taxonomic names do. For example, Wakame is a common name for
a specific kelp species (Undaria pinnatifida), just like
Crayweed would, by similar logic, be a common name for a specific
rockweed species (Phyllospora comosa).
“I was on a previous (dismally failed) quest to call fucoids
‘fucaleans’. After being lambasted by reviewers and journal editors, I
gave up. Fucoids it is!”.
Reply. We argue that this suggestion for a common name sounds
too similar to the taxonomic names (Fucales ~ fucoids
~ fucaleans) and therefore does little to increase
name-awareness.
“I have tried to find additional reviewers, but I regret to tell you I
was not able to find other reviewers to evaluate your manuscript”.
Reply. This suggest to us that many seaweed experts are not
interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for the
citation deficits reported here.
“For me it’s a mistake the simplification of the taxonomic concepts, as
in the identity of each group there is an inherent explanation of its
functionality”.
Reply. First, this critique would then also apply to corals,
mangroves, saltmarsh, and kelps – terms that this reviewer might
abandon following the logic that the simplification of taxonomic
concepts is a mistake (despite being used millions of times, see our
search-engine analyses). Second, the critique does not acknowledge
that divergent evolution results in functions that do not always match
taxonomy.
“There are many algae growing in rocky reefs so in my opinion giving
the name of rockweeds to the fucaleans (sic) would even decrease the
value of these algae”.
Reply. This critique makes little sense because it implies
that perceived values of corals, mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass. and
kelp are decreased (not increased) because they have well-established
common names.
“I always start my talks that not all algae are the same but
there are some that are structural, so, a general name as rockweeds,
that equivalates (sic) all of them is in my opinion a great mistake”.
Reply. This critique is an example of the ‘splitter vs.
lumper’ debate. Any object can be considered both universal and unique
depending on the classification system used to describe the object. We
disagree that nature should only be described in a narrow
splitter-context. We argue instead that naming fucoids as rockweeds
facilitate a hierarchical common name approach that can be useful when
communicating with non-experts (e.g., crayweed → rockweed → brown
seaweed → seaweed → marine plant (in a functional context) → plant →
biological organism).
“Dear authors, as you will read, the issue raised with your commentary
is a matter of strong debate, as I also noticed when younger marine
botanists declined to review your manuscript asking me to send it to
more experienced researchers, feeling uncomfortable with it”.
Reply. This suggests (again) to us that many seaweed experts
are not interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for
the citation deficits reported here - but also that the academic
seaweed establishment are perceived to be dogmatic, potentially
impeding young scientists to express their opinions (the rockweed name
suggestion is an opinion, not a scientific fact that is right or
wrong).
“I strongly disagree with the proposal the authors present in this
manuscript, and I recommend that the manuscript should be rejected”.
Reply. This suggests (again) to us that many seaweed experts
are not interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for
the citation deficits – but also that some seaweed experts appear to
be dogmatic scientist that reject rather than discuss opinions they
disagree with.
“I disagree about the statement that fucoid algae are less known than
corals, seagrasses, kelps, mangroves, and salt marshes”.
Reply. This critique simply ignored our citation analyses,
which demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.
“Here in Europe the importance of fucoids is largely acknowledged and
nobody has any problem to call them with specific names”.
Reply. This critique again, ignored our citation analyses
which demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.
“Rockweeds is a term that merely means seaweeds growing on rock; this
expression can be equally applied to all other species of macroalgae
growing on bedrocks”.
Reply. This critique ignores both the long tradition from the
North Atlantic of calling all species in the Fucaceae family rockweeds
as well as several common dictionary definitions (shown in the
manuscript). Given that it is well-established that Fucaceae are
rockweeds, we do not understand why it is highly contentious to extend
this common name to a single higher taxonomic level (i.e., from family
to order).
“I have never heard anybody complaining that these names are difficult
to remember”.
Reply. It is, of course, difficult to complain about things we
do not know about (i.e., if someone has never heard about fucoids they
cannot complain that it is a difficult name to remember). Furthermore,
the critique appears (again) to ignore our citation analyses which
demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.
“…in the same way I don’t see why this term should be
universally applied at global level”.
Reply. Given that (a) it is well-established and generally
accepted that Fucaceae are rockweeds, and (b) there is precedence for
calling all Fucales for rockweeds both in the scientific literature
and in dictionaries (as we show with references in the manuscript), we
do not understand why it is so contentious to extend the common name
to a single higher taxonomic level (from family to order).
“I find it irritating to see that names derived from Latin and ancient
Greek are considered technical names and treated as if they were
something bothersome”.
Reply. Our personal decades-long experience interacting with
children, students, the public, non-experts, and managers alike,
suggests to us that taxonomic names are more difficult to remember
than common names. Obviously, as marine seaweed ‘experts’ we can
navigate fucoid taxonomies, but, despite our academic training, we may
nevertheless have more trouble doing the same for Rhizophoraceae,
Acroporidae and Cymodoceaceae (but if we know they are ‘mangroves’,
‘corals’ and ‘seagrass’ we instantly recognize their importance).
“A large part of the words making the vocabulary of modern European
languages, including English, derive from Latin and ancient Greek; these
are languages that have made a large part of the modern western
civilization. I don’t see why words derived from Latin of ancient Greek
should be dismissed in the scientific language either.Eliminating them in favour of other terms seems to me more a
barbarization than a simplification”.
Reply. We agree entirely that scientist should continue to use
taxonomic names in our scientific work (we never suggested to
’eliminate’ Fucales/fucoid terminology). However, personal experience
interacting with humans outside our research world, suggest to us that
taxonomic names can be more difficult to remember. For example, we
have personally experienced that the importance of Rhizophoraceae,
Acroporidae, Cymodoceaceae and Alariaceae is harder to explain to and
remember for school and university students, compared to teaching them
about mangroves, corals, seagrass, and kelp.