[Taxacom] paleodicots

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Mon Feb 22 14:06:32 CST 2010

Hi Thomas,
       But weren't the paleodicots always thought of as dicots primarily
because of their dicotyledonous seedlings?  Even the seedlings of some
Hydatellales and Nymphaeales seem to actually be cases of
       That was one of the reasons I resisted breaking up the dicots
into two separate Classes for so long, because that dichotomy was so
useful and seemed so clearcut in most cases.  Seems like not calling
them some kind of "xxxx dicots" omits important information, namely that
the first angiosperms were probably dicotyledonous.  Or I am incorrect
about that?  Seems like I am relatively alone in wanting to continue
labelling them as dicots.
Thomas G. Lammers 
I always think of those basal branches as being neither monocots nor
dicots.  They mix and match various traditional characters, and have
others that really fit neither.  Even for someone not particularly
cladistic in his outlook, it is useful to think of them as "basal
angiosperms", and reserve "dicot" for the tricolpate clade. 
Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
Curator of the Neil A. Harriman Herbarium (OSH) 
Department of Biology and Microbiology 
800 Algoma Blvd. 
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh 
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list