jcclark-lists at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 22 21:29:26 CST 2010
On 2010-02-22 12:06, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> But weren't the paleodicots always thought of as dicots primarily
> because of their dicotyledonous seedlings?
So are ginkgoes thus dicots?
> Seems like not calling
> them some kind of "xxxx dicots" omits important information, namely that
> the first angiosperms were probably dicotyledonous.
They were probably seed-bearing and possessed of xylem, too.
I agree with Tom. The standard textbook separations separate eudicots
and monocots well, but that's about the limit of it.
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
More information about the Taxacom