RESUMO
Caesalpinioideae is the second largest subfamily of legumes (Leguminosae) with ca. 4680 species and 163 genera. It is an ecologically and economically important group formed of mostly woody perennials that range from large canopy emergent trees to functionally herbaceous geoxyles, lianas and shrubs, and which has a global distribution, occurring on every continent except Antarctica. Following the recent re-circumscription of 15 Caesalpinioideae genera as presented in Advances in Legume Systematics 14, Part 1, and using as a basis a phylogenomic analysis of 997 nuclear gene sequences for 420 species and all but five of the genera currently recognised in the subfamily, we present a new higher-level classification for the subfamily. The new classification of Caesalpinioideae comprises eleven tribes, all of which are either new, reinstated or re-circumscribed at this rank: Caesalpinieae Rchb. (27 genera / ca. 223 species), Campsiandreae LPWG (2 / 5-22), Cassieae Bronn (7 / 695), Ceratonieae Rchb. (4 / 6), Dimorphandreae Benth. (4 / 35), Erythrophleeae LPWG (2 /13), Gleditsieae Nakai (3 / 20), Mimoseae Bronn (100 / ca. 3510), Pterogyneae LPWG (1 / 1), Schizolobieae Nakai (8 / 42-43), Sclerolobieae Benth. & Hook. f. (5 / ca. 113). Although many of these lineages have been recognised and named in the past, either as tribes or informal generic groups, their circumscriptions have varied widely and changed over the past decades, such that all the tribes described here differ in generic membership from those previously recognised. Importantly, the approximately 3500 species and 100 genera of the former subfamily Mimosoideae are now placed in the reinstated, but newly circumscribed, tribe Mimoseae. Because of the large size and ecological importance of the tribe, we also provide a clade-based classification system for Mimoseae that includes 17 named lower-level clades. Fourteen of the 100 Mimoseae genera remain unplaced in these lower-level clades: eight are resolved in two grades and six are phylogenetically isolated monogeneric lineages. In addition to the new classification, we provide a key to genera, morphological descriptions and notes for all 163 genera, all tribes, and all named clades. The diversity of growth forms, foliage, flowers and fruits are illustrated for all genera, and for each genus we also provide a distribution map, based on quality-controlled herbarium specimen localities. A glossary for specialised terms used in legume morphology is provided. This new phylogenetically based classification of Caesalpinioideae provides a solid system for communication and a framework for downstream analyses of biogeography, trait evolution and diversification, as well as for taxonomic revision of still understudied genera.
RESUMO
Increasingly, academic evaluations quantify performance in science by giving higher rank to scientists (as well as journals and institutions) who publish more articles and have more citations. In Mexico, for example, a centralized federal agency uses such bibliometric statistics for evaluating the performance of all Mexican scientists. In this article we caution against using this form of evaluation as an almost exclusive tool of measuring and comparing scientists performance. We argue that from an economic viewpoint, maximizing the number of journal articles and their citations does not necessarily correspond to the preferences and needs of society. The traditional peer review process is much better suited for that purpose, and we propose "rule-based peer review" for evaluating a large number of scientists.
En la ciencia hay una fuerte tendencia global de cuantificar el desempeño de los científicos (así como a las revistas e instituciones), dando mayor jerarquía a aquellos científicos que publican más artículos y son más citados. En México, por ejemplo, una institución federal centralizada usa tales estadísticas bibliométricas para evaluar el desempeño de todos los científicos del país. En este artículo advertimos sobre los inconvenientes de esta forma de evaluación como una herramienta casi única para medir y comparar el desempeño de los científicos. Argumentamos que, desde un punto de vista económico, la maximización del número de artículos científicos y de la frecuencia de sus citas no necesariamente corresponde a las preferencias y necesidades de la sociedad en general. El proceso tradicional de arbitraje por pares es más adecuado para este propósito, y proponemos el "arbitraje por pares basado en reglas" para evaluar a un número alto de científicos.
Há uma forte tendência global para avaliações acadêmicas que quantifiquem o desempenho nas ciências através de ranquear os cientistas (assim como revistas e instituições) que publicam mais artigos e têm mais citações. No México, por exemplo, um órgão centralizado do governo utiliza tais estatísticas bibliomêtricas para avaliar o desempenho de todos os cientistas mexicanos. No presente artigo, chamamos atenção ao uso desta forma de avaliação como ferramenta quase que exclusiva para medir e comparar o desempenho dos cientistas. Argumentamos de um ponto de vista econômico que maximizar o número de artigos e as suas citações não corresponde necessariamente às preferências e necessidades da sociedade. O processo tradicional de avaliação pelos pares é mais apropriado para esta finalidade, e propomos um sistema baseado em "avaliação pelos pares seguindo regras", que podem avaliar um grande numéro de cientistas.