[Taxacom] classification of Class Rosopsida
J. Kirk Fitzhugh
kfitzhugh at nhm.org
Thu Apr 9 16:31:05 CDT 2009
Your very pertinent questions relate to the fact that many of us engage
in systematization, not classification. I'm a systematist, not a
classificationist. There's a profound difference.
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
Jim Croft wrote:
> Evidence? Or does it just 'look better'?
> Expert community compromise consensus? Or personal divine revelation?
> Scientific research? Or Alchemy?
> The answer to these questions is VERY important.
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I decided to update my Class Rosopsida
>> classification (especially since hotmail sort of "chewed up" the
>> classification I posted last spring). I think it is VERY important to
>> have such a middle-ground classification, if only to more clearly show
>> both the commonalities and differences between the two extremes of: (1)
>> the "traditional" ones, which are usually too split in my opinion, and
>> don't systematically store sister group information in a way that is
>> clear and retrievable, and (2) APG, which gets a little too overlumped
>> in some taxa, and sadly lacks the ranks of Class and Subclass to give
>> classification a balanced and cohesive structure (which "cladifications"
>> usually don't, especially the large ones). I attempt to combine the
>> best of both (cladistic and eclectic) into a single classification.
>> Most of the changes are in Subclass Rosidae. I
>> have added Order Picramniales, and I am now dividing APG's bloated
>> "super"-Order Malpighiales into just four separate Orders (Violales,
>> Euphorbiales, Podostemales, and Ochnales), coded as a polytomy (since
>> their cladistic relationships are still poorly known). These are the
>> four Orders recognized by Thorne and Reveal, 2007 (in their recent
>> classification in Botanical Review, Vo. 73, pp. 67-181). They do not use
>> the name Malpighiales, and APG does not use the name Euphorbiales, so
>> this thankfully minimizes confusion when those names are used. Frankly,
>> instead of Malpighiales sensu lato and sensu stricto, I'd now rather see
>> Malpighiales just disappear from use, as in Thorne and Reveal, 2007,
>> although I doubt that we will be that lucky anytime soon. I have also
>> made some other minor changes in coding to reflect updated sister group
More information about the Taxacom