FW: Amaranthaceae

Clemants, Steve steveclemants at BBG.ORG
Tue Jul 31 09:34:58 CDT 2001


FYI

***************************
*Steven Clemants          *
*Vice President of Science*
*Brooklyn Botanic Garden  *
*1000 Washington Ave.     *
*Brooklyn, NY 11215       *
*718-623-7309             *
***************************

-----Original Message-----
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
species).

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?

Michael Frankis
Newcastle, UK


"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
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       *
> *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
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.
>
> 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]
> wrote:
> >
> > These are really two issues.  When ever biota are combined systemically
> and
> > thus nomenclatorially the oldest name gets priority - that is mechanics.
> > On the other hand no one is obligated to embrace or adopt the
> combinations.
> >
> > 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
> X
> > 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
> and
> > 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
> he
> > happens to suffer the misfortune of having his paper anomalously handed
> to
> > 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
> surprising.
> > 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
> and
> > > the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by
> Adanson,
> > > 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
> > 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 mailing list