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.