kennethkinman at webtv.net
Thu Jan 29 13:07:44 CST 2009
Dr. Civeyrel is certainly correct, that sinking Asclepiadaceae
into a Apocynaceae (sensu lato) didn't really resolve the paraphyly
"problem" (which they felt "obliged" to correct). It just shifted the
paraphyly down to subfamily level. If their goal was to eliminate
paraphyly, they should have also split up the paraphyletic subfamilies
which made up Apocynaceae (sensu stricto) into more subfamilies.
As I said in my post last night, if you are going to allow
paraphyly, it would be much simpler to have a paraphyletic mother taxon
(Apocyanaceae sensu stricto) giving rise to a daughter taxon
(Asclepiadaceae). However, as long as strict cladism is the rage,
people are going to continue attacking paraphyletic taxa whether it is
helpful or not. With Takhtajan having also lumped these two families
together, fighting this move seems even more hopeless.
If you sink Asclepiadaceae in Apocynaceae, how come you can still have a
monophyletic Asclepiadaceae. At the most it would be monophyletic
Asclepiadoideae within monophyletic Apocynaceae. That is the intention
as well as the solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. CIVEYREL" <civeyrel at cict.fr>
To: "Gurcharan Singh-satyam" <singhg at satyam.net.in>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [tdwg] Semantic Web: What is a species?
I am one of the researchers who worked on Asclepiadaceae and sadly from
my molecular results I was obliged to sink Asclepiadaceae within
Apocynaceae, but this resolve nothing.
Allright you have now a monophyletic Apocynaceae instead of a
paraphylectic Apocynaceae s. str., and a "more or less" monophyletic
But none of the subfamilies used for Apocynaceae are monophyletics (the
asclep sub fam are) and still they are used as valid subfamilies.
More information about the Taxacom