Order Poales (sensu compromisso) = "core Glumiflorae"
kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Sun Jul 7 23:33:59 CDT 2002
Well, I am of the opinion (perhaps old-fashioned to some) that
memorization---- keeping memorable classifications straight in your head---
is important (and thus is not a sterile discussion). I worry about students
(and everyone else) becoming too dependent on trees (which are often too
complex to keep clear in one's head), and that is why I prefer simpler (but
balanced) classifications with the cladistic complexity being encoded.
Therefore I have no problem with a broader Poales, but with the
bromeliads now entering the picture, I think the APG has carried the lumping
too far. In the interests of compromise, I propose to meet you more than
half way. I will only exclude three Orders (Bromeliales, Xyridales and
Hydatellales), so that Order Poales "sensu compromisso (Kinman, 2002)" would
include the older orders Typhales, Juncales, Cyperales, Restionales, and
Poales. This has the added advantage of making the question of Cyperales
vs. Juncales moot and avoids a debate over that.
I don't have the paper (1995 or 96 from a group at Kew, cited by
Thorne, 2000), but they found CHARACTER support for this clade (yes, I DO
think characters are very important). They and Thorne still split it into
various orders (Typhales, Juncales, Poales, and perhaps others), but you
can't please everyone. I think this group of "core glumiflorae" makes for a
nice holophyletic Order Poales that is smaller than of APG, but larger than
the traditional Poales. Anyway, I believe it to be a viable compromise that
is balanced between splitters and lumpers.
Therefore, I propose the following phylogeny and classification. I
still code Order Acorales as the first clade in Class Liliopsida, but I am
still struggling how to code the four or five clades (mainly the "Liliidae"
mess) between Acorales and the commelinoid clade (which I am here proposing
to classify and code as follows, pending further feedback):
11 Poales (= "core glumiflorae")
----Cheers, Ken Kinman
>From: Peter Stevens <peter.stevens at MOBOT.ORG>
>Reply-To: Peter Stevens <peter.stevens at MOBOT.ORG>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Cyperales or Juncales?
>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 08:00:42 -0400
>As my 16 y.o. son would say, "whatever floats your boat, dad".
>(I don't know what this translates to in different parts of the
>world, and I am not sure I want to know...)
>There is no priority above the rank of family.
>The question as to whether there is one or ten orders is basically
>sterile; it is lumping and splitting, basically a debate without any
>substantive content, although it may impinge on memorization.
>Whatever we decide to do in our infinite wisdom, it will not affect
>what my students learn next term, because they are taught straight
>from the tree, the best hypothesis of relationships there is (and if
>there is no consensus, they are taught that, too). WHAT MATTERS IS
>THE PHYLOGENY AND THE CHARACTERS, If we can't agree on a set of names
>then a) phylocode proponents (Ken, secretly, perhaps? ;) ) will all
>be very happy, b) those who see taxonomists as having an inordinate
>interest in names will have their belief confirmed.
>It is up to us.
>> The APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) recognizes an Order Poales sensu
>>lato (including all the Glumiflorae orders and Bromeliales as well). I
>>started using Poales sensu lato after Peter Stevens posted on the updated
>>APG site a couple of months ago.
>> However, I used a more traditional classification (in 1994), and now
>>that I have been digging deeper, I think I would prefer to stick with that
>>approach, with separate Orders Bromeliales, Hydatellales, Xyridales,
>>Typhales, Cyperales, and Poales (sensu stricto).
>> In 1994 I used the name Cyperales for sedges, rushes, and thurnia (3
>>families), and stated that it included Juncales (and the APG still
>>recognizes this as a clade). However, Reveal seems to prefer the older
>>Juncales over Cyperales (when they are combined in the same order), while
>>(among others) prefer Cyperales. Is there anything in the ICBN which
>>*mandates* priority for ordinal names? If not, would most botanists
>>Cyperales or Juncales?
>> --------- Ken Kinman
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Taxacom