Clades, cladons, and "cladifications"

Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Mon Jun 14 09:49:34 CDT 2004

" loses information about phylogeny as the "price" for recognising

Am I taking this out of context? "Morphology is incompatible with
monophylly"? There are some assumptions here that need examination.

Both morophology and molecular real data are strongly nested. The nesting is
taken as evidence of shared ancestry. When analyses conflict, you have only
two options, both become less sure, or you must find some reason to throw
one out. Sometimes the latter is okay (when you come up with a strongly
supported theory that explains away one or the other), but it is perfectly
okay to not have an answer, isn't it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stevens [mailto:peter.stevens at MOBOT.ORG]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Clades, cladons, and "cladifications"

I think what Hull was saying is more like morphological differences
can never trump monophyly (if that is one's guiding light). I do find
morphology and monophyly largely compatible, but monocots are rather
different from other angiosperms, and podostems very different from
other broad-leaved angiosperms, and if one recognises
monocots/dicots, Podostemales/any other -ales, one loses information
about phylogeny as the "price" for recognising morphology.  In
situations like this both kinds of information are not retreivable.
You pays your money and takes your choice; I am happy to us monophyly
as the guiding principle.


Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
richard.zander at <mailto:richard.zander at>
Voice: 314-577-5180
Fax: 314-577-9595
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
Res Botanica:
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110

More information about the Taxacom mailing list