[Taxacom] early extant angiosperms

Steve Manning sdmanning at asub.edu
Mon Feb 22 09:40:34 CST 2010

P.S. And your original proposal, "early-divergent angiosperms" 
doesn't have that "paleo" connotation either and also avoids the 
possible connotation that all the dicots may have diverged together 
from the monocots or vice-versa that still could be there using 
"early-divergent dicots".  I think I still like that one best since 
it doesn't over-weight the importance of how many cotyledons they 
happen to have versus other features.

Steve (off the top of my head)

At 09:13 PM 2/20/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Barry,
>      Well, yes and no.  It is clearly probable that we will find
>evidence of a small branch below Amborellales, either extant or perhaps
>more likely fossil.  However, this is more a problem of using
>"basalmost-xxxx", not "basal-xxxx".  The new branch would change the
>meaning of the "basalmost-xxxx", but "basal-xxxx" could simply be
>appended as the new basalmost clade of "basal-xxxx".
>        The main reason I am now leaning against calling my Class
>Magnoliopsida "basal dicots" or "basal angiosperms", is not because of
>potential new discoveries of basalmost members, but because of the
>varying usages of "basal dicots" or "basal angiosperms" at the upper
>end, whether people variously cut it off after Amborellales, or after
>the ANITA group, or at the base of eudicots, or somewhere in between.
>The term basal therefore seems more problematic where the group ends,
>not where it begins.
>       The more I think about it, the more I am leaning toward
>paleodicots (or the alternative spelling palaeodicots).  It is a nice
>simple word which is complementary to eudicots (which are exgroup to the
>paleodicots).  I think the base of the eudicots is now almost
>universally agreed upon, and being also the upper end of the
>paleodicots, the latter term has less baggage than using the phrase
>"basal dicots" or "basal angiosperms".   So I think we agree, but for
>slightly different reasons.
>         -----Cheers,
>                     Ken
>Barry Roth wrote:
>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.   Barry
>--- 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
>"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.
>          --------Cheers,
>                          Ken
>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