The reviewed book, also Beiheft 144 of Nova Hedwigia, comprises 13
scientific articles on diatoms. Because the focus of the book is on
morphology of diatoms, almost all studies include a sound
documentation, mainly by scanning electron microscopy (ten papers),
light microscopy (nine papers), or transmission electron microscopy
(two papers). All photographs are reproduced in good quality. Nine
papers deal with marine species, six with freshwater taxa; 11 papers
deal with recent species, three with fossil material. The papers
altogether include two new genera (Donskinica Kozyr. and Gomphosinica
Kociolek & al.), 17 new species and four new combinations.
The subtitle reveals the incentive for the publication: “Celebrating
the work and impact of Patricia A. Sims on the occasion of her 80th
birthday”. The core of this Festschrift is a comprehensive work on
Sims’s oeuvre and her scientific career, mostly at the Natural History
Museum, London. It is somewhat of an understatement to call this “a
bibliography with annotations concerning type material”. New names
published by Sims and collaborators are listed, including the correct
citation, statement on validity, mention of new combinations and
information on nomenclatural types. David M. Williams and Grete Hasle
compiled this valuable information, the latter author sadly having
passed away during the preparation of the manuscript. Looking at the
list of people with whom Sims worked, one understands that some of
them were unable to contribute, such as Norman Ingram Hendey (1903 –
2004) and Robert “Bob” Ross (1912 – 2005), but some still living
co-workers are missing in the volume. David G. Mann acknowledges Sims
warmly in his contribution; others honour her by dedicating species to
her: Eolimna simsiae Kulikovskiy & Lange-Bert., a freshwater species
from Lake Baikal; Gomphosinica simsiae Kociolek & al., a Chinese
freshwater species; and Nitzschia simsiae Witkowski & al. from
brackish San Francisco Bay. (The other species in honour of Sims,
previously published, are: Cerataulus simsiae Hern.-Becerril &
Barón-Campis in Bot. Mar. 55: 77, fig. 37 – 57. 2012, a marine
species; Cylindrospira simsiae Mitlehner in Diatom Res. 10: 323,
fig. 2 – 5, 8 – 17. 1996, a species from the Palaeocene; and
Pseudoaulacodiscus simsiae J. Witkowski & al. in Beih. Nova Hedwigia
141: 381, fig. 8 – 21, 40 – 48. 2012, a species from the Upper
Cretaceous.) Some studies are presented by co-workers of Sims:
R. M. Crawford, G. Hasle, D. G. Mann, N. I. Strelnikova, A. Tuji,
D. M. Williams and J. Witkowski. Other contributors to the reviewed
book seem to be loosely related to Sims: M. Bąk, S. A. Barón-Campis,
P. Dąbek, J. M. Fenner, D. U. Hernández-Becerril, B. Karthick,
G. Khursevich, J. P. Kociolek, T. F. Kozyrenko, M. Kulikovskiy, I.
Kuznetsova, H. Lange-Bertalot, Q. Liu, R. Nautiyal, T. V.
Ramachandra, C. Riaux-Gobin, J. Salazar-Paredes, M. A. Tiffany,
Q.-X. Wang, A. Witkowski, J. Yesilyurt, and Q.- M. You. Because Sims
has worked for more than 60 years on the morphology of diatoms,
morphology becomes a catch-all term for all contributions under the
main title “Diatoms and the continuing relevance of morphology to
studies on taxonomy, systematics and biogeography”. The reviewer is
astonished at the title. There is no doubt that morphology is
important for describing biodiversity, especially when just diatom
valves are available on permanent slides or in old sediments. But why
do the editors regard morphology as a “continuing” relevance? Is there
a real disruption? Is it necessary to defend the relevance of
morphology? There might be arguments that those biogeographic studies
or phylogenetic works only using molecular signals might be highly
disruptive in comparison with results of classical morphological
studies. But in fact science should include all evidence available,
including morphology. On the other hand, morphology gives not enough
evidence to solve all open questions in taxonomy, systematics and
biogeography. The reader will find just one phylogenetic tree in the
reviewed book. It is a figure using solely morphological features, to
show the phylogenetic position of the newly erected genus Gomphosinica
Kociolek & al.; the printing quality of the tree is poor. The
scientific value has to be proved by further molecular studies on
clonal cultures.
Because morphology is the main focus of the reviewed book, collections
as a place for safeguarding researched specimens are an important
topic. Articles on collection items give a strong statement on the
importance of physical collections. David Mann introduces Lothar
Geitler’s (1899 – 1990) cytological preparations, which have been the
basis for many pioneering works on diatom life cycles. This
collection is now housed at the University of Vienna but has been
largely overlooked. The article shows detective work by a specialist
who is familiar with Geitler’s research topics and thus is interested
to compare Geitler’s results with his own research. Beside the details
on Geitler’s oeuvre, David Mann’s article can be read as a general
discussion on the value of collections as proof for published research
as well as a source for further studies. In his final comments, David
Mann also mentioned his own scientific collection with unpublished
data and photographs. This underlines the necessity of efforts to
safeguard original research data, to strengthen scientific collections
and to digitize analogue data for better accessibility for the
scientific community. David Williams, Jovita Yesilyourt & Akihiro Tuji
present an overview on Paul Friedrich Reinsch’s (1836 – 1914) diatom
names, protologues and specimens. Without publishing any taxonomic
treatment or typification, the authors document and discuss this
German phycologist’s published and deposited materials, which are in
need of proper interpretation by current researchers. Some small
errors were not corrected during the editorial process: Gomphonema
“chubichuensis” should be spelled G. chubichuense Jüttner & E. J. Cox;
G. “doonensis” should be spelled G. doonense B. Karthick & al.; and
G. “juettnerii”, named after Ingrid Jüttner, should be spelled
G. juettnerae B. Karthick & al. – according to McNeill & al. (2012)
and as stated by Index Nominum Algarum (INA 2017) and PhycoBank
(PhycoBank 2017). The names of authors of the articles should have
been cited in full for easier comparison with nomenclatural author
standards; for instance, “Q. Liu”, most likely not the same author as
Q. Liu (Qiang Liu) working on orchids, could have been easily
standardized according to IPNI (2017) if the given name of the author
had been spelled out. Beside some minor points, mentioned above, the
editors, Jakub Witkowski, David Williams and J. Patrick Kociolek did a
good job. The book holds valuable information for the next years and
decades. The book is well produced, but meanwhile the concept is a bit
old-fashioned in a scientific environment of open-access publications
and collaborative cyber-taxonomic working via the Internet. However,
to come to the point: this is a good and handsome book which is
recommended to diatomists as well as to libraries.
Addendum
A new paper, which should be added to the bibliography of Sims (Sims &
Crawford 2017), has recently been published, including three
novelties: Ellerbeckia cretacea (Jousé) P. A. Sims & R. M. Crawford in
Diatom Res. 32: 2. 2017 [http://phycobank.org/100114]; E. radialis
R. M. Crawford & P. A. Sims in Diatom Res. 32: 6, fig. 11 – 16. 2017
[http://phycobank.org/100116]; and Paralia gongylodes P. A. Sims &
R. M. Crawford in Diatom Res. 32: 6, fig. 17 – 22. 2017
[http://phycobank.org/100117].
Wolf-Henning Kusber
Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin,
Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6 – 8,
14195 Berlin, Germany
Willdenowia
Annals of the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem 47(3):225-226
