[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth mantaining?)

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Wed Feb 16 21:35:58 CST 2011


Hi Kim,
       I agree that whether a taxon is speciose or not is not crucial,
but it is nevertheless one of many of the various considerations that
need to be weighed and considered (although no single such consideration
is crucial in and of itself).   
        However, I certainly do not agree that age (degree of
divergence) is necessariy crucial either, in that it would unnecessarily
reflect Hennig's insistence that classification MUST  eliminate all
paraphyletic taxa, where sister taxa (sometimes better classified at
different taxonomic ranks) must be rejected simply because they do not
originate at the same point in time.  Sometimes a more intermediate
approach yields the best result in the long term.        
       In the case of Campanulales, it is even more complex.  Especially
that it would require the inclusion of Famly Rousseaceae, and the
exclusion of certain families that have often been included within it
(but more likley now splitting off within families of the traditional
Asterales).         
       Anyway, surprisingly to some on taxacom, the latter consideration
actually might make me lean toward following APG (II and III) in this
case, and place Campanulaceae (and thus Campanulales) in Order
Asterales.  If there is no strong preference to maintain a separate
Order Campanulales, I may actually follow APG's ordinal lumping in this
case, as shockingly as that might seem to some who think I have some
anti-cladistic or anti-molecular bias.  But this is not necessarily for
the same reasons that APG decided to lump them.             
       In any case, I'm quite willing to be persuaded to do so, but not
for most of the reasons that have been expressed so far today on taxacom
which seem to assume that I have already made up my mind to retain
Campanulales as a full Order.  Such an assumption is not correct, and
retaining an Order Campanulales is certainly not at the top  of my list
of angiosperm Orders that should be retained and resisted from APG's
overall tendency to lump too many angiosperm taxa at the ordinal level.
This is simply a borderline case, and if there is no strong preference
to retain an Order Campanulales, I am quite willing to follow APG on
this one.  To do otherwise, I certainly could not claim to be in search
of an optimal middle-ground classification.  I am quite willing to
listen to arguments either way (online or offlist).       
            -----------Ken Kinman                    
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim van der Linde wrote:
      I think this question is impossible to answer without knowing the
wider context. I normally prefer some consistency such that the clade of
the same rank are comparable in characteristics such as age, degree of
divergence in morphological characteristics etc. Whether a clade is
speciose or not is not crucial for me. 
Kim      

On 2/15/2011 9:58 PM, Kenneth Kinman wrote: 
> Hi all, 
>        Since I haven't updated my angiosperm >classification in almost
2 
> years, I was looking at some possible changes, especially >some minor 
> coding changes. 
>         However, in the process, I also began to wonder >about whether
to 
> continue separating Order Campanulales from Order >Asterales (which
were 
> merged in APG II).  Although Order Campanulales may now >only include
two 
> families (Campanulaceae and Rousseaceae), it is still >rather
speciose. 
>       Anyway, I have no strong inclination one way or the >other in
this 
> case.  So I wonder if any taxacomers have any preferences >one way or
the 
> other?  Lump Order Campanulales into Asterales, or keep >them as
separate 
> sister Orders? 
>              --------Cheers, 
>                              Ken Kinman 
> 
> 





More information about the Taxacom mailing list