[Taxacom] Save Order Bromeliales!!! (was: International, Commission....)

[Eric Gouda]

Hi there,

This subject is of interest to me as you would understand. With the risk 
of saying very stupid things, I want to learn something here, so I give 
it a try.

As a mainly traditional Bromeliad specialist looking at morphological 
characteristics of the plants, with little knowledge about phylogeny, I 
do not understand the relationship of Bromeliales and Poales in any way. 
To my feeling it is more close to Liliales (genera like Chlorophytum) or 
even to Commelinales if I look to some "primitive" looking species of 
Brocchinia!
What I do understand is that with the little data used of the whole 
genome, the most likely trees are chosen (calculated).
What I also have learned is that from molecular research of the Britain 
Flora, most taxa that we have considered to be species has a gene flow 
with other taxa (if I remember well about 80% of the what we think are 
species), which means that reality is less likely a tree (model) but 
more likely a spider web at least at some point.

At what perspective can I look to this new APG development?

Best,
Eric Gouda

ps. if too embarrassing, mail me directly at e.j.gouda at uu.nl

Op 3-10-2011 19:00, taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu schreef:
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 03:13:17 GMT
> From: Kenneth Kinman<kennethkinman at webtv.net>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Save Order Bromeliales!!! (was: International
> 	Commission....)
> To:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID:<COL103-DS191351D5F5FC491E0A448AA0FA0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi Richard,
>        While I realize that your observation (that such elimination of
> paraphyletic taxa could be a boon to "elderly taxonomists") was offered
> with a bit of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, it is certainly no laughing
> matter.  And actually, phylogeneticists are not only eliminating
> paraphyletic taxa, but creating even larger numbers of new clade names
> at a rate that even I find alarming (I love clades, but formally naming
> them with the slightest bit of new data can be terribly premature and
> destabilizing).  Therefore we have large numbers of new names to digest,
> many which will not stand the test of time, at the same time that
> perfectly good paraphyletic taxa are being thrown on the garbage heap
> (which we agree is not helpful).
>        Anyway, I can't help but wonder if the abandonment of the
> perfectly good Order Bromeliales (among others) into APG's bloated Order
> Poales was an attempt to avoid potential paraphyly (perhaps the same for
> their bloated Order Malpighiales).  The Order Bromeliales continues to
> be recognized by large numbers of people (biologists and gardeners
> alike), and yet the APG seems unwillingly to reverse any of their
> extreme lumping (even that one).  Are they afraid of paraphyly jumping
> up and biting them in the behind, or are they just intransigent
> (unwilling to admit they made a mistake)?  Once it was shown that Order
> Hydatellales (which they also sunk into Poales) was not even a monocot),
> it was a perfect opportunity to reassess the wisdom of their
> overlumping, but instead they just ejected it apparently without
> reevaluating the wisdom of a bloated Order Poales (even without it).
>        Anyway, I see no good reason to continue lumping either Order
> Bromeliales or Order Typhales within such a heterogenous and monstrous
> Order Poales.  They are distinct not only in morphology, but molecularly
> as well, so there is no excuse for it.  It is time for APG to reverse at
> least one of their excessive overlumpings, and this one is at the top of
> my list for such a reversal.
>        -----------Ken Kinman


-- 
University Botanic Gardens
att. E.J. Gouda
Budapestlaan 17
3584 CD Utrecht
Netherlands