mail of Dick Brummitt to D. Murphy, May 23 rd, 2011
Hi,Dan
  Your comments on Acacia have been forwarded to me. Nice to hear from you again.  I remember we were seated next to each other at a dinner in Vienna and had some interesting conversation on cladisitic  classification. Unfortunately the Acacia issue has got completely out of control and I am not prepared to participate in mindless  abuse, so I shall not be coming to Melbourne.  But my views on  cladistics have not changed and will be presented at the Congress in my absence. 

Of course you may opt out of the miserable Acacia mess if you wish, but I hope not everyone in  Australia will do so.  Despite my career-long devotion to African botany, the case for applying the name Acacia to the Australian taxa seems to me overwhelming when I consider the criteria usually applied in nomenclatural  committees.  If we are talking about nomenclatural stability, we can start  with the number of species affected, where the hard figures are incontrovertable (1012 vs. c. 80). And then there are the international industrial importance (multibillion dollar industry), local economic imprtance  (one nurseryman told me he sold some 340 species for landscaping, horticulture  etc), ecology (perhaps about equal but difficult to quantify), social significance, and particulaly familiarity of the name to general public, etc.  From the start I knew I had to put aside my personal bias, but  others in the African scene did not see it that way.  I have been appalled and ashamed at some of the effusions from the African side. 

They seem to feel  that they were cheated at Vienna, but that is not so.  They just didn't  understand the system.  The vote required to overthrow a committee decision was made perfectly clear before the vote took place, and they failed to achieve it.  Later the Rapporteurs invited them in Taxon to submit a new proposal, but they refused to do so.  Apparently, it seems to me, they knew  they could not make anything like as good a case as Australia has.  All the  pro-Africa side's arguments avoid the fundamental issues and centre on  procedural and personal matters.  Their increasing tendency to persoanl  invective just emphasises how poor their arguments for an African type are.

However, in an attempt to reach a conclusion acceptable to the African side as well as those in Australia, I published a new proposal in the December Taxon which would allow  both sides to retain the name Acacia while still maintaining  separate genera. little nomenclatural slight of hand is  needed, but this has been matched by a similar proposal by the Vice-Rapoorteur  in the June Taxon (with my comments alongside).  There is no reason why we cannot adopt my proposal. This should allow us to escape the acrimony which is so dividing the botanical world.  Buit the reactions I have had from the  African side have been negative and in some cases just pathetical personal invective.  Oh well, if one has to either laugh or cry, I will try to laugh.

But, as I have said, I think it would be a pity if everyone in Australia just opts  out.  Australia has a very strong case for having one of its species as the type, and if the African side will not see sense and support the December compromise proposal, this is in danger of being reversed. The  Australian side should be properly organised, as they were before the Vienna Congress when I received 250 messages in support of an Australian type.  This time round I hope for the compromise position and an end to the divisive  arguments.

Best wishes.  Dick Brummitt.