SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz
Thu Feb 17 16:19:29 CST 2011
Hi Ken and others
I just want to point out that (in my mind) "traditional" Asterales is just Asteraceae or Asteraceae and Calyceraceae (traditional being defined as "when I went to school").
>From this Asteraceae systematist's point of view, the inclusion of Campanulaceae and the several small families is an improvement in the taxonomy that has followed from reliable and reproducible molecular phylogenetic studies, and one of the real gains of this era.
In the tree (Fig 3) of Tank and Donoghue (2010) the branch uniting Roussaceae and Campanulaceae is rather short (as are many of the others within the expanded Asterales) and therefore to my mind not all that reliable, and at best representative of only a short period of exclusive common ancestry. Its therefore not surprising that the details of these relationships have been different in different studies. Conversely, the branch supporting the expanded Asterales looks pretty good.
I would therefore come down strongly on the side of the more inclusive order.
Also I would note that I think this was recognised in the first APG system rather than a change appearing in APG II.
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
More information about the Taxacom