steveclemants at BBG.ORG
Tue Jul 31 09:34:58 CDT 2001
*Steven Clemants *
*Vice President of Science*
*Brooklyn Botanic Garden *
*1000 Washington Ave. *
*Brooklyn, NY 11215 *
From: Michael Frankis [mailto:pfne10838 at cableinet.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:39 AM
To: Clemants, Steve
Cc: dlewis at IASTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: Amaranthaceae
Interesting pair of contributions - unfortunately my current computer
settings don't allow me to respond direct to the TAXACOM list.
The main problem as I see it, is that while Amaranthaceae is
nomenclaturally the older name, Chenopodiaceae is very much the more
familiar name among the 'general public' (among whom I count myself in
this instance as someone with no expertise in either family) - with over
50% more genera and species, a wider global distribution, and containing
many more economically important plants (both crops and important weed
If the families are to be combined, there would seem to be a good case
here for treating them under the later name Chenopodiaceae as a nom.
cons., in order to maintain stability for the maximum number of people.
Could you perhaps post these comments on to TAXACOM for others to
comment on too?
"Clemants, Steve" wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 *
> *718-623-7309 *
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> 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.
> Phil Bunch
> Lemon Grove, California
> 32:44:00N 117:01:58W
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > others say about the particular research paper. The reviewer is likely
> > 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.
> > Ron
> > ----- 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
> > I
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > > My question to the listmember, especially those interested in
> > > nomenclature, is :
> > > >
> > > > Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising
> > both
> > > 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