angiosperm classification

JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE josephl at AZTEC.ASU.EDU
Tue Jan 5 05:13:49 CST 1999


From:    Ken Kinman <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>

> I
>  just don't think that "formally" throwing monocots into
>  some class of dicots will be fruitful

What proposal are you referring to? In the proposal I
saw posted on Taxacom yesterday, the dicots were separated
into seven classes, with the monocots as an eighth class
caled Liliopsida.
    I agree with you that this is not likely to catch on,
and that we are not quite ready for this quite yet. The
dichotomy between dicot and monocot is deeply ingrained,
even taught to students in secondary schools. Evidence at
present may suggest that the proposed lineages represent
natural groupings, but before accepting formal changes
such as those proposed, I would prefer to be 95% certain
that new analyses 10 years in the future will not cause
these groups to fall from favor.
    Cronquist a few decades ago proposed an
angiosperm taxonomy that was widely accepted at the time
but was regarded as obsolute only a few decades later.
I am not saying "Don't make any changes." I am saying
"Wait until you're reasonably certain the proposed changes
are an improvement before plunging ahead with them."

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."




More information about the Taxacom mailing list