[Taxacom] APG III genus list

[Richard Zander]

Actually, that's a fine comment, Robin. If a lineage changes not only
anagenetally but also by serial macroevolutionary events, then one
cannot use evolutionary monophyly as a principle of classification.
Evolutionary monophyly is a guide to genetic continuity, which helps
interpret present-day nesting of both classical taxonomy and cladistics.
A clade can indeed belong to different families following Woodger's
Paradox in the evolutionary sense. (So much for clades . . .  : )

 

R.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/>  and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm> 
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm> 

________________________________

From: Robinwbruce at aol.com [mailto:Robinwbruce at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 3:52 PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] APG III genus list

 

Richard

 

Alternatively one could try to address Woodger's paradox, but that would
entail viewing organisms generatively and not historically; hence I will
not hold my breathe.

 

Robin

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 9/3/2011 7:22:23 P.M. GMT Daylight Time,
Richard.Zander at mobot.org writes:

	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
	http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
	Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
	http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
	
	
	-----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? 
	
	_______________________________________________
	
	Taxacom Mailing List
	Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
	
	The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
either of these methods:
	
	(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
	
	(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here