[Taxacom] (no subject)

Tom Wendt twendt at mail.utexas.edu
Thu Mar 17 15:35:20 CDT 2011


TEX-LL is slowly working in that direction, and we are dealing with 
the database first.  A wonderful on-line resource is the GRIN 
Taxonomy web page at:
http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl?language=en
It has recently been updated to be completely congruent with APGIII, 
including the subsequent/latest (well, as of some time last year, at 
least) changes reflected at Peter Steven's web site, and includes a 
list of all genera and generic synonyms by APG family.  It also 
treats all the rest of the vascular plants.  A great one-stop 
resource.
Tom

>As we sink deeper into the Homogocene, the Herbarium ARIZ in Tucson 
>has boldly arranged the collection in line with the APG III (numbers 
>of Pteridophyte and Conifer have a decimal point ahead of them, as 
>Pinaceae is .44). Are there many Herbaria doing this? I would doubt 
>it. We started by listing every genus folder we had, then researched 
>the Families that the listed the genera, and then listed the 
>families acording to the Linear Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (LAPG) 
>III: a linear sequence of the families in APG III 
>(Haston,Richardson, Stevens Chase and Harris; Botanical Journal of 
>the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 128-131). We used Mabberley's Plant 
>-Book to find most of the Families, but that book differed slightly 
>from APG III. So I wonder now many Herbaria, smallish as we are 
>(500,000) are actually doing this. We need a standard system for 
>Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms, still
>Phil Jenkins (ARIZ)
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
>[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan 
>[jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
>Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:04 AM
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: [Taxacom] paraphylophobia
>
>My point was that such terms are perjorative. Phobia is usually used 
>in the context of not being rational. Technically anything that is 
>not recognized is suppressed but whether such suppression is a 
>phobia is another matter entirely. If paraphyletic groups have no 
>real existence other than as arbitrary constructs then I'm not sure 
>that 'suppression' could apply other than suppression of something 
>that is not existent which would have to be existent to be 
>suppressed. I'm no philosopher so perhaps this is nonsense. But back 
>to my main point, calling viewpoints phobic is not productive 
>anymore than I might call someone panbiogeographophobic or 
>vicariancephobic etc.
>
>John Grehan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>And finally, a rebuttal to John's
>argument.  Paraphylophobia is real and being widely taught as if it is a
>necessary part of modern taxonomy (which it isn't).  I see no evidence
>whatsoever that "monophylophobia" exists---where people would suppress
>clades (strictly monophyletic taxa) in a way that paraphylophobics
>suppress paraphyletic taxa.
>       Anyway, here is the RBG Kew press release if you want to read it.
>I still can't believe they said that "Flowering plants are less
>significant than scientists throught".   Would they say that about birds
>too?
>             ----------Ken
>
>http://www.kew.org/about-kew/press-media/press-releases-kew/easy-as-apg3/index.htm
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Paul (dipteryx) wrote:
>         It has nothing whatsoever to do with paraphyly,
>but with assigning a rank to the taxonomic group that is informally
>known as Angiosperms. Rank is relative, a matter of context. There is no
>inherent reason why treating the Angiosperms as a subclass (with the
>name Magnoliidae) would be either 'right' or 'wrong'. It is perfectly
>silly (not to say highly arrogant) to make an ex cathedra statement like
>"Magnoliidae are such-and-such a group"; a context must be specified for
>it to make any sense (for instance: "according to Chase and Reveal the
>Magnoliidae are the Angiosperms").
>Paul
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>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





More information about the Taxacom mailing list