Re: Question Re: VTF Classification

From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Mon Oct 27 1997 - 15:28:33 PST


Date:          Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:28:33 
From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg4137$foo@default>
Subject:       Re: Question Re: VTF Classification

Dear Chris,

> Do you have a particular favorite classification scheme for the
> Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae? You mention that the most problematic point
> is the order, but putting these in the Caryophyllidae subclass is also
> contentious I would think (as opposed to breaking out a new subclass).

Both ways are equally contentious. At least part of the cp group
(viz. especially the families that do *not* contain cps:
Plumbaginaceae and Polygonaceae) have been classified as
caryophyllids in the past. If Scrophulariales are accepted as
asterids, I see absolutely no problem in grouping Droseraceae with
the caryophyllids.

> Given that Cronquist is absolutely wrong and Thorne, 1992, also misses the
> mark, I was wondering if anyone has actually proposed a higher level
> classification for this region of the plant taaxonomy that is consistent
> with the latest molecular data, etc.

Not formally.

> Or if not, do you at least have an opinion as to how these families
> could be best arranged based on the latest data?

Yes, indeed. It was published in CPN 26:34-38, 1997.

For all the pitiable listeners who do not (yet?) subscribe to CPN (or
who have not yet received the issue due to our latest mailing
problems), I sketch the tree in brief (ascii art, do not print in
proportional type!):

     /Droseraceae
     |_/Drosophyllaceae
     | \/Dioncophyllaceae
    /| \Ancistrocladaceae
    ||/Nepenthaceae
   /|\|_/Plumbaginaceae
   || | \Polygonaceae
   || \Simmondsiaceae
   |\/Frankeniaceae
  /| \Tamaricaceae
  |\Caryophyllidae s.str.
 /\other true dicots
/\other angiosperms
\other plants

All branches beginning with a "_" indicate unresolved polytomies
(future research and/or more sequences required). The exact topology
may be subject to further modification, but I am fairly sure that the
"flavour" of this classification will remain. It is at least more
natural than in the older systems.

Kind regards
Jan



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:13 PST