[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Wed Feb 16 11:25:06 CST 2011
I guess if the Association of Professional Genealogists, in their 3rd
(sorry for the mistaken reference to their second) version, have
declared these to be a single order, then so be it. ;-)
Given the cladogram on which the classification is based, I understand
Ken's point. Whether we treat these putatively monophyletic groups as
one order or two would seem to be a matter of preference, not evidence.
There is no rule I am aware of for deciding if the two groups in
question are treated as two suborders or as orders.
On 2/16/2011 10:12 AM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> Dear All,
> It is not a matter of evidence in this case. The present evidence
> seems to show that Order Campanulales (families Campanulaceae and
> Rousseaceae) is sister group to my more traditional Order Asterales, and
> this is how I coded it in my 2009 classification.
> However, one could also treat them as sister Suborders rather than
> sister Orders. This would yield one very large Order Asterales (as APG
> started doing in its second version). The evidence is the same either
> way, so it is just a matter of rank (and whether one doesn't mind
> sinking another Order into synonymy when it isn't really necessary).
> This is a matter of lumping vs. splitting, not evidence.
> 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
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
More information about the Taxacom