[Taxacom] (no subject) - fern system

Rabeler, Richard rabeler at umich.edu
Thu Mar 17 16:29:23 CDT 2011

Although MICH has not adopted this system (yet??), one system for ferns and gymnosperms that might be of interest appeared earlier this year in Phytotaxa:


Rich Rabeler, MICH

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Beach, James H
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:24 AM
To: 'taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu' (taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu)
Cc: peterar at berkeley.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] FW: Linear sequence, classification, synonymy, and bibliography of vascular plants

Forwarded for the author identified below

---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
From: Maarten Christenhusz <maartenchr at gmail.com<mailto:maartenchr at gmail.com>>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:21 +0000
Subject: Linear sequence, classification, synonymy, and bibliography of vascular plants Dear colleagues,

A set of three papers, making up a special volume in Phytotaxa (also published as a book), consisting of three papers including accepted genera and family linear order for lycophytes, ferns and gymnosperms and families and higher taxa for APG III has just been published. Synonymy and bibliography is also provided. All articles are open access and can be downloaded at http://www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/content/2011/pt00019.htm

Best wishes,

Maarten Christenhusz
Editor Phytotaxa

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Wendt
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 4:35 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] (no subject)

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:
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.

>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
>             ----------Ken
>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").

More information about the Taxacom mailing list