[Taxacom] early extant angiosperms

Barry Roth barry_roth at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 20 20:04:14 CST 2010

In any case I would vote against "basal-xxxx" because it would only take interpolation of one small branch below them to make them not basal any more.  I suppose a larger principle would be not to name groups with respect to their position in a phylogeny, since our understanding of phylogeny is fluid.

--- On Sat, 2/20/10, Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net> wrote:

From: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] early extant angiosperms
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010, 5:11 PM

Hi Steve,
      Thanks for the input.  It made me think of a fourth alternative:
"early-divergent dicots".   And today I also remembered a fifth
alternative: paleodicots (palaeodicots)--- which would have the
advantage of being just one word, and also having been used by various
botanists for a longer period of time.  
     It also would more readily indicate that the old dicot Class has
been divided into two separate classes, Class Magnoliopsida
(paleodicots) and Class Rosopsida (eudicots).  On the other hand, both
"basal" and "early-divergent" have been applied to more restricted
groups at the base of the paleodicots.

Steve Manning wrote:
I would vote for "early-divergent angiosperms" to avoid the suggestion
that they are close enough together to be a "single" group giving rise
to monocots and all other dicots or all other angiosperms. 

At 09:12 PM 2/19/2010, Kenneth Kinman wrote: 
>Dear All, 
>         I've been reading some recent papers on early >angiosperms 
>(especially their floral evolution).  There is frequent >(but informal) 
>reference to what I formally refer to as Class >Magnoliopsida (basal 
>dicots).  Some workers tend to refer to this paraphyletic >group as 
>"early-divergent extant angiosperms", while other (like >Endress) seem
>prefer calling them "basal angiosperms".  But not >surprisingly they
>not inclined to attach a formal taxon to this paraphyletic >grouping,
>matter how important and useful they obviously find it. 
>        Anyway, I'm quite happy to continue formally >recognizing this 
>group as Class Magnoliopsida, but I wonder which of the >common names 
>would be preferable.  We are all referring to extant forms, >so I don't 
>feel a great need to include that particular detail, but >otherwise, 
>which of the follow three would be preferable as a common >name of my 
>Class Magnoliopsida: (1) basal dicots; (2) basal >angiosperms; or (3) 
>early-divergent angiosperms.  Here is the relevant part of >my 2009 
>classification as a reference: 
>   1 Class Magnoliopsida%% (basal dicots) 
>             1 Amborellales 
>             2 Hydatellales (incl. Archaefructaceae) 
>             B Nymphaeales 
>             3 Austrobaileyales 
>             4 {{Liliopsida}} (= monocots) 
>             B Ceratophyllales 
>             C {{Rosopsida}} (= eudicots) 
>             5 Chloranthales 
>             6 Piperales 
>             B Canellales 
>             7 Laurales 
>             8 Magnoliales 
>_a_ Class Liliopsida (monocots) 
>_b_ Class Rosopsida (eudicots) 
>       --------Ken Kinman 


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here


More information about the Taxacom mailing list