steveclemants at BBG.ORG
Tue Jul 31 08:47:00 CDT 2001
Having given a talk at the International Botanical Congress in 1999 about
just this topic I respectfully submit.
There have been a number of studies that support the clade that includes
these two families. Evidence to support this clade comes from
ultrastructure, morphology and molecular data.
Most members of the Amaranthaceae (sensu stricto) form a monophyletic clade
with support from both morphological data (filamentous tube, pollen
ornamentation) and molecular data (Downie et al.). Most members of the
Chenopodiaceae also form a distinct clade with support from molecular data
(Downie et al.). The problem comes from Amaranthus itself. It is unusual
within Amaranthaceae in lacking a filamentous tube, having relatively simple
pollen and being monoecious. Some of the molecular data supports
positioning of Amaranthus near Chenopodium and Spinach. In a combined
morphological and molecular cladogram that I created for my talk based on 15
taxa and 68 characters Amaranthus was nested within the Chenopodiaceae
clade. Unfortunately the branch support within this cladogram was very
poor. Donald Pratt, a student at Iowa State, has been looking at other
genes and finding different results.
Following my results either the Chenopodiaceae clade (including Amaranthus)
would have to be named Amaranthaceae and the old Amaranthaceae (minus
Amaranthus) would have to be named Celosiaceae or the whole group can be
named Amaranthaceae. I support the later choice.
*Steven Clemants *
*Vice President of Science*
*Brooklyn Botanic Garden *
*1000 Washington Ave. *
*Brooklyn, NY 11215 *
From: Phil Bunch [mailto:pbunch at CTS.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:28 PM
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Subject: Re: Amaranthaceae
I agree completely. I just hope to get some feedback from people who really
know something about these families. Since I deal with regulatory issues a
lot I'd like to stay ahead of the curve on the nomenclature of two very
important families in my region.
Lemon Grove, California
On Monday, July 30, 2001 12:35, Ron Gatrelle [SMTP:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> These are really two issues. When ever biota are combined systemically
> thus nomenclatorially the oldest name gets priority - that is mechanics.
> On the other hand no one is obligated to embrace or adopt the
> This is why I myself think strict peer-review _in the field of taxonomy_
> is way over blown. A published research paper is not someone telling all
> the rest of us that they are now the only one who has anything to say on
> subject and we now must all fall in line. Rather, it is the researcher(s)
> saying here is what I have done and what I have determined by my means
> methods, now what do the rest of you think of the conclusion? The only
> question pre-publication should be, is this researcher's material worth
> puttig forth to everyone else for consideration as it looks like it is
> probably correct. - or more correct than the current understanding of X.
> True peer-review occurs over decades by everyone in X field. It is not
> accomplished dependant on the red or green light given by what one or two
> others say about the particular research paper. The reviewer is likely to
> be just as wrong as the writer. Or, the writer is absolutely correct and
> happens to suffer the misfortune of having his paper anomalously handed
> some Ego who would trash any paper on X because he sees X as his own
> personal king-of-the-hill domain.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Bunch" <pbunch at CTS.COM>
> Subject: Re: Amaranthaceae
> > How well accepted is this merger? This is a outside my main area of
> > interest and I see the general similarity but it is a little
> > don't think I've ever mixed them up in the field.
> > Phil Bunch
> > On Monday, July 30, 2001 01:07, Abdulghafor Nawaz
> [SMTP:nawaz at KACST.EDU.SA]
> > wrote:
> > > Dear List members,
> > >
> > > Recently families Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae have been merged
> > the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by
> > Fam. Pl. 2: 266. Jul.-Aug. 1763 (Amaranthi).
> > >
> > > Long ago, in the year 1835, Burnett described the family Betaceae in
> > Outl. Bot.: 591, 1091, 1142. Jun. 1835. Burnett's concept of Betaceae
> > included both the present day Amaranthaceae s. str. and Chenopodiaceae.
> > >
> > > My question to the listmember, especially those interested in
> > nomenclature, is :
> > >
> > > Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising
> > Amaranthaceae Adans. s. str.(1763) and Chenopodiaceae Vent. (1799).
> > >
> > > Thanks and appreciation for the anticipated replies.
> > >
> > >
> > > Abdul Ghafoor
> > > Scientific Research Specialist,
> > > NRERI, KACST,
> > > P.O.Box 6086,
> > > Riyadh-11442
> > > Saudi Arabia
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001
More information about the Taxacom