[Taxacom] Order Dipsacales classification (Subclass Asteridae)

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Sun Apr 4 21:09:12 CDT 2010


Dear All,
      As you may have noted, my classification of Dipsacales (posted
yesterday) was totally cladistic.  No paraphyly issues were involved in
that classification, so it was not an issue of evolutionary systematics
vs. strict cladism.  However, upon further reading of the recent
literature to which I do have access, I now suspect that paraphyly may
be yet a further issue in the recognition of an Order Paracryphiales.  
      If Paracryphiales sensu lato (sensu APG) is paraphyletic as I now
increasingly suspect, I am even more inclined to combine it with Order
Dipsacales.  Not because I am philosophically opposed to a paraphyletic
Paracryphiales, but strict cladists will be.  So in this case, I believe
strict cladists will eventually agree that expanding Dipsacales to
include their Paracryphiales will be to the benefit of all concerned.
So please note that this may not result in Family Sphenostemonaceae
being synonymzied with Family Paracryphiaceae, but rather Family
Quintiniaceae being kept separate from the Paracryphiaceae.  Perhaps
indicative of even more of excessive overlumping than even I initially
realized. 
            ----------- Ken Kinman
******************************************************
Dear All,         
         Below is my classification of Order 
Dipsacales.  The first two families are what many are now splitting off
as a separate Order Paracryphiales (following APG 2009).  Note that I am
following Watson and Dallwitz in including Quintiniaceae as a synonym of 
Paracryphiaceae, but maintaining Sphenostemonaceae as a separate family.
The other 9 families are what one might call the "core" Dipsacales, 
but regrettably the NCBI database has already reduced them to just 2
families.  By collapsing the last 6 families into one large
Caprifoliaceae, they now have one huge alphabetic listing of genera with
no phylogenetic structure (resulting in an unnecessary loss of
information).  Overlumping can be just as bad as the other extreme of
oversplitting (such as raising Viburnaceae to a full Order Viburnales).
The old broad Caprifoliaceae has clearly been abandoned, but  I view
such a new broad (but different) Caprifoliaceae as history just
repeating itself (lesson not yet learned).  Time to stick with a lean
Caprifoliaceae (sensu stricto) that doesn't need to be trimmed yet again 
a decade hence.                          
            Thankfully there are plenty of 
people out there who still value a more balanced, middle-course
approach.  I must admit that I may eventually end up putting
Sphenostemonaceae in its sister family Paracryphiaceae, or even
Sambucaceae in its sister Adoxaceae, but you won't EVER see me reducing
this diversity down to just 3 families in 2 separate Orders (as NCBI has
done). Anyway, I am obviously in favor of James Reveal's proposal to 
conserve the name Viburnaceae (and rejecting the name Tinaceae).  

Dipsacales 
    1  Paracryphiaceae 
    B  Sphenostemonaceae 
    2  Viburnaceae 
    B  Sambucaceae 
    C  Adoxaceae 
    3  Diervillaceae 
    4  Caprifoliaceae 
    5  Linnaeaceae 
    6  Morinaceae 
    7  Dipsacaceae 
    8  Valerianaceae 

                  --------Ken Kinman 





More information about the Taxacom mailing list