editorial

We understand why Holmes et al. suggested synonymizing Toronia with Persoonia and why Pillon et al. formally did so. However, the case presented thus far remains suggestive rather than compelling. The molecular dataset used was limited—small by 2018 standards and minuscule by today's. Given the deep divergence in question, recovering an accurate phylogenetic signal can be challenging, particularly with such a restricted dataset. Moreover, support values are only moderate, and in fact, lower in Pillon et al. than in Holmes et al.; a posterior probability of 0.94 in a Bayesian analysis would be considered weak by some. It remains entirely plausible that with additional data, Toronia could be recovered as sister to the rest of Persoonieae, in which case minimizing nomenclatural disruption would argue for its retention. Furthermore, if Holmes et al. are correct in stating that the only distinguishing features of Toronia are tetraploidy and dioecy, then applying the same rationale consistently would lead to the proliferation of non-monophyletic genera. Given these considerations, we have opted to retain Toronia until compelling evidence demonstrates that it is unequivocally nested within Persoonia.