[Taxacom] ALL angiosperms in just one Subclass Magnoliidae???

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Kenneth Kinman
Verzonden: do 17-3-2011 3:42

> Dear All, 
>      Is is true that APG III (2009) reduced ALL angiosperms
> to just a single Subclass Magnoliidae? 

***
Actually, no:

The APG III paper is Open Access (at
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x/abstract)

However, there is an accompanying paper (abstract at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x/abstract)
which does propose that. Obviously, this paper has a different 
authorship and is not an APG-paper.
* * *

> I don't think even the PhyloCode is taking such an extreme position
> of their taxon Magnolidae (which actually is, or at least was, 
> last time I reviewed their proposals, more in line with traditional
> views).                
>     To classify angiosperms as a just a single Subclass of
> plants is the height of the paraphylophobic knee-jerk (and 
> simplistic) reaction to paraphyletic taxa in general. It is 
> Hennigism at its worst. I wonder if even Hennig would approve of 
> such extremism.  

***
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