Cytinales (Rafflesiales split)
kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Fri Nov 5 22:33:58 CST 2004
In my last classification of angiosperms (posted here back in February 2004), I place Order Rafflesiales next to Order Malvales (but excluding the odd-man out, Family Mitrostemonaceae, which is related to the ericalean grouping, and that placement still seems to be holding up). However, a paper published two weeks ago by Nickrent et al., 2004 (BMC Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 4:40) has confirmed that Family Rafflesiaceae is related to the malpighian grouping, and I am thus now tentatively including that family in Order Hypericales.
That leaves two families (Cytinaceae and Apodanthaceae) closely related to Order Malvales, and luckily there is an ordinal name available for it (Cytinales). Thus Rafflesiales (sensu stricto; 1 family only) is tentatively sunk into Hypericales, and Order Cytinales is revived from synonymy. Whether Cytinales is a sister group to Malvales or is a subclade of Malvales remains to be seen. In any case, the APG's (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's) 1998 sinking of Apodanthaceae into Rafflesiaceae is best ignored. I would urge NCBI to remove genus Pilostyles from Rafflesiaceae (and place it in the distinct Family Apodanthaceae), since this appears to be another case where the APG got carried away with lumping. As a lumper myself, I understand the APG strategy, but they just seem to have gotten carried away in a few instances.
More information about the Taxacom