Re: Elimination of the former Umbric subgroup in Inceptisols

I am also mystified about changes in Inceptisols, especially the disappearance of the Haplumbrepts.
These were (are!) a very distinct group of soils geographically, for use & management, and easy to
identify in the field, also a group that clients could readily recognize. Now they must be Humic
Dystrudepts etc. It seems that someone decided to be 'consistent': suborders always moisture regime
(unless at the Order level), and then bases. Now when a map is made at great group or higher level, it
does not show these distinctive & important soils. The umbric epipedon is now considered only as
important as lithic conditions or subsoil wetness (also at subgroup levels). I think a good test of any
such change is: what do the maps of higher categories look like? If many important lines (based on
properties, use, or management) are erased, then the change is not a good idea.

I second the comment about this particular change being unfortunate with respect to carbon
cycle modelling.

These changes in the Inceptisols go against Guy Smith's (and collaborators) idea that in Inceptisols,
the epipedon was the most important feature for use. Can the person who was behind this change
explain on what basis they second-guessed St.Guy?