#1   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2005, 03:33 PM
P van Rijckevorsel
 
Posts: n/a
Default maples

I see somebody ran a more robust-looking analysis on Sapindaceae.
This rather confirms what was said here previously
(and thus contradicts the literature):
- Xanthoceras is sister to the rest,
- Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae together are sister to the rest.

So almost any position whatsoever can be defended, but:
- if Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are families then so is Xanthoceras
(likely by itself, but given the present level of analysis, it may have
unknown allies)
- although the whole can be dumped into one big family Sapindaceae, which
will be a holophyletic unit, it is hardly a necessity.
PvR



  #2   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2005, 07:35 PM
Stewart Robert Hinsley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
I see somebody ran a more robust-looking analysis on Sapindaceae.
This rather confirms what was said here previously
(and thus contradicts the literature):
- Xanthoceras is sister to the rest,
- Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae together are sister to the rest.

So almost any position whatsoever can be defended, but:
- if Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are families then so is Xanthoceras
(likely by itself, but given the present level of analysis, it may have
unknown allies)
- although the whole can be dumped into one big family Sapindaceae, which
will be a holophyletic unit, it is hardly a necessity.
PvR


This would be Harrington et al, Systematic Botany 30(2): 366-382 (2005)?
I see from the abstract that they propose merging Aceraceae and
Hippocastanaceae into a single subfamily.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
  #3   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2005, 08:15 PM
P van Rijckevorsel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef in

This would be Harrington et al, Systematic Botany 30(2): 366-382 (2005)?
I see from the abstract that they propose merging Aceraceae and
Hippocastanaceae into a single subfamily.


***
That looks right. In the discussion they state that the data allow either:
- splitting into five families or
- merging it into one big family
Both are feasible. They feel it is neater to make just one big family, but
it is mostly a matter of personal taste, or rather the APG-style, now in
vogue, of making big families.

I don't believe that this APG style is necessarily a good thing. To make the
order Malvales into the family Malvaceae is one thing, but the big family
Salicaceae looks to be riding for a fall.
PvR




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
identifying Amur (ginnala) maples from all other maples Archimedes Plutonium Plant Science 0 21-05-2003 07:56 AM
grafting japanese maples Karen United Kingdom 1 10-03-2003 08:09 PM
[IBC] Trident Maples in South Florida Luis Fontanills Bonsai 7 09-03-2003 03:08 PM
[IBC] Japanese Maples From Seed (now X-rated!) Jim Lewis Bonsai 0 06-02-2003 03:54 PM
[IBC] Japanese Maples From Seed Ben Griffin Bonsai 0 06-02-2003 03:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017