[Taxacom] APG III genus list

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sat Sep 3 13:21:56 CDT 2011

I'm glad you asked, Phil. What it comes down to is should a
classification be informed by descent with modification, namely one
taxon generating another taxon, i.e. macroevolution, OR not? 

The Linnaean system of nested categories does not represent well either
inferred present-day clades or inferred sequences of taxic changes
through time, so there is no Right Classification to shoot for, just an
approximation of a cladistic tree or a Besseyan cactus using nested
relationships. Of course one might invent a Macroevocode to compete with
the Phylocode. Hmmmmm . . . 


* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jenkins, Philip
D - (pjenkins)
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:09 PM
To: Tom Wendt; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] APG III genus list

Hi,Tom, Phil here,

I know that Our Herb has switched to the APGIII order of things, right
or worng. We had the confinence that APG's order might be close, if not
exactly, the arrangement. We thught it close enough that we believed no
huge exceptions occur in the future . No huge shuffles, in
practilicality. We may be wrong or OK, to some degree that we kind of
believe that the molecular botanists are on some kind of lasting trail.
But who knows? 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list