Only yesterday I was thinking how quiet it was on this list without the
prickly Cereoid

What you are saying is that the fruits of Cactaceae are closer to pomes
(apples) than berries?
PvR

============
Cereoid+10 schreef
Not exactly.

Most references describe Cactus fruit as berries but technically they are
not. The fruit of Cactaceae are actually modified receptacles. In the genus
Opuntia, the receptacle is typically sunken into a modified branch. In most
In many Cactus genera, the fruit are covered with scales and/or spines from
areoles. Only in the most advanced genera such as Mammillaria and Melocactus
are the fruit completely naked, fleshy and indistinguishable from berries.

Areoles are axillary buds that contain trichomes rather than bud scales.
Besides the Cactaceae, areoles can be found in the Portulacaceae and
Didieraceae.

What really distinguishes the Cactaceae is the floral parts being spirally
arranged with the leaves grading into bracts and sepaloid and petaloid
tepals. In most flowering plant families, the floral parts are whorled.

Spines are modified leaves and/or leaf parts and can be found in a number
of unrelated plant families.

Jie-san Laushi wrote
Floral and fruit characteristics are high in importance. Occasionally
other features are used, too. For instance, the family Cactaceae is
characterised by flowers with numerous petals, sepals, and anthers (certain
other families may have either only 4 or only 5 petals), fleshy fruits
(berries, I believe?), and areoles -- that is, the "tufts" or clusters of
spines. The areoles are one key feature for telling true cacti from spiny,
cactus-like succulents of other families, whose spines tend to occur singly.
Of course, when they flower, the differences are even more visible.

Jie-san Laushi

Huodau lau, xuedau lau, hai you sanfen xue bulai

===================
Because I am limited (?) by the logic of a Computer Science education,
what do you bio-types use for classification criteria??

Cereoid+10 schreef
Calling the true dicots with 4-5 merous flowers "Core Eudicots" is
redundant and unnecessary.

+ + +
Since it is a distinct clade it deserves a distinct name.
"Core Eudicots" may not be a thing of beauty, but is unambiguous
+ + +

What is needed is a term to describe the primitive 3-merous false dicots!!

+ + +
All the basal clades do have names.
BTW There is no such thing as "false dicots"
Although it has lost quite a bit of luster as a hypothesis for a natural
grouping, "dicot" is still a name in current usage and none of the plants
belonging to it are false. They all do exist.
PvR

Problem with English here.

"Core Eudicots" are the original true dicots so simply calling them dicots
should be sufficient.

The primative trimerous dicots are not true dicots in the modern sense and
they are the group in need of a name of their own. Presently the group still
lacks a name of its own.

If you claim the group has a name, tell us what it is.


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
Cereoid+10 schreef
Calling the true dicots with 4-5 merous flowers "Core Eudicots" is
redundant and unnecessary.

+ + +
Since it is a distinct clade it deserves a distinct name.
"Core Eudicots" may not be a thing of beauty, but is unambiguous
+ + +

What is needed is a term to describe the primitive 3-merous false
dicots!!

+ + +
All the basal clades do have names.
BTW There is no such thing as "false dicots"
Although it has lost quite a bit of luster as a hypothesis for a natural
grouping, "dicot" is still a name in current usage and none of the plants
belonging to it are false. They all do exist.
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
I was alluding to your grasp of English not the language in general.

+ + +
Thanks for the clarification
+ + +

Lets try this again because you don't seem to understand what is being
said here. Or is it you just like being verbose and obtuse?

Presently there are three primary clades of flowering plants recognized.

+ + +
? ? ? Depends on what you mean by "primary"
+ + +

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.

+ + +
According to Judd &al (2002) there are 4(+) primitive clades
(primitive = non-eudicot and non-monocot).
Not all trimerous either
+ + +

2. Monocots.

+ + +
Yes, this is the umabiguous one
+ + +

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Core Eudicots")

+ + +
? ? ? The "Core Eudicots" are a clade within the Eudicots.
Certainly the "Core Eudicots" is a very big clade, but I would hesitate to
call it "primary".
+ + +

It is the first clade that is in need of a simple easy to understand name.

+ + +
The biggest (and trimerous) clade in that group goes by names such as
"Magnoliids" or "Magnoliid complex". This seems easy enough to understand,
isn't it?
+ + +

So what if the AGP uses the name "Core Eudicots" for the true dicots. It
is silly and redundant. As used in common botanical parlance, the term
"dicot" has a much deeper meaning than just the number of seedling
cotyledons.

+ + +
Obviously "dicot" is a name for a group of plants. The number of
cotyledons per plant is not constant in this group, although usually two.
+ + +

Dicots are angiosperms minus monocots only in your antiquated
understanding.

+ + +
Probably shared with 99%+ of botanists. Not to mention the general
population
+ + +

The present concept is that dicots are (4-5 merous) angiosperms minus
monocots minus trimerous dicots.

+ + +
This is what is called a self-contradictory statement.
Even if disregarding the slip likely you are in a minority of one here?
+ + +

I am not talking about the names of families, orders, classes, etc.

To which names for primitive angiosperms as proposed by the APG, as in the
book by Judd &al. do you allude? What makes the textbook by Raven &al. so
authoritative? Just the fact it is large and expensive and parrots Judd &
al.? Polly want a textbook?

Also, cite the links to the websites to which you allude.

+ + +
Actually there is life outside the web.
Certainly the bulk of literature is outside the web
PvR

======================
P van Rijckevorsel
It is a matter of naming.
Not sure English in the wide sense has much to do with it

"Core Eudicots" is a name as used by the APG.
The group it applies to could be approximated by "true dicots" although
this would not be especially helpful. These certainly are not "original" in
any sense of this word. Certainly they cannot be called just "dicots", a
different concept entirely (dicots are angiosperms minus monocots).

It might be regarded as a problem that the names for clades as used by
the APG are not regulated by any Code. They could be formalized under the
ICBN, but the APG does not seem to propose that. They could also be
formalized under the PhyloCode, if ever this becomes operational.

Nevertheless these names are pretty widely accepted and used. What is
your problem with the names for primitive angiosperms as proposed by the
APG, as in the book by Judd &al ? (BTW followed by and large by the
authoritative
textbook by Raven &al).
PvR

Sorry to hear you cannot find the NYBG
(I always thought of it as a famous botanical garden:
it it IS a fairly large institute).

Try http://www.nybg.org/bsci/spub/catl/CATAL2.html#MEM
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
What is the link to the volume from the NYBG on fruit types ?

In article m,
Cereoid+10 writes

Presently there are three primary clades of flowering plants recognized.

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.

2. Monocots.

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Core Eudicots")

It is the first clade that is in need of a simple easy to understand name.

* It is also far from obvious that the first group is a clade, many
sources reckoning it as a paraphyletic group. Judd et al (1 edn, start
of chapter 8) give 6 alternative cladograms, in none of which are the
"primitive" dicots a clade.

Tree of Life

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Angiosp...=Spermatopsida

has yet another cladogram which has three basal lineages (Amborallales,
Nymphales and Austrobaileyales), and a pentachotomy in the
Euangiosperms. (It does have most of the primitive euangiosperms in a
tetrachotomous magnoliid clade.)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Website has a similar cladogram

http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/...apweb2map.html

I notice, that if you ignore the ANITA taxa, this has restored the
monocot-dicot dichotomy, with Ceratophyllales incertae sedis.

* Your trichotomy excludes some plants, viz. the basal eudicots. The
eudicots are the clade with primitively tricolpate pollen, not all of
which have 4-5-merous flowers. The Core Eudicots are a group therein,
excluding, at least, Gunnerales, Ranunculales and Proteales. Whether the
Core Eudicot clade is equivalent the clade which has primitively
4-5-merous flowers is the point under discussion; there's enough
variation in the floral morphology of non-rosid, non-asterid eudicots
that it is not obvious to me what the character polarities should be on
a cladogram.

So what if the AGP uses the name "Core Eudicots" for the true dicots. It is
silly and redundant. As used in common botanical parlance, the term "dicot"
has a much deeper meaning than just the number of seedling cotyledons.

Yes, it refers to a suite of traits which distinguishes the combination
of the basal angiosperms and tricolpates from the monocots, one of which
is the number of seedling cotyledons. (Not all of which are universal in
either group, due to subsequent changes of character states.)

Dicots are angiosperms minus monocots only in your antiquated understanding.
The present concept is that dicots are (4-5 merous) angiosperms minus
monocots minus trimerous dicots.

Not on Tree of Life, not on Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, not in Judd et
al, nor in any other source I've seen. Have you a citation for this
"modernised" redefinition of the term dicot?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Did you read the warning to the website and its various family trees it
presents?

http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/

!!IMPORTANT - WARNING TO ALL USERS!!

v All clades are hypotheses of relationships, and as hypotheses they may
be overturned. Even though I have for the most part been conservative,
changes in our ideas of relationships, and hence in the clades we talk
about, are particularly likely in parts of Caryophyllales and Malpighiales.
Taxa whose relationships are still largely unknown or only partly known -
apparently not many, although we must expect to find a few more seriously
misplaced genera - should also not be forgotten. Thus some changes are to be
expected, but changes are neither a defect of cladistics, nor a necessary
consequence of the use of molecular data.

************************

Cladistics is statistical and only as good as the number of different
character states used and the significance given to them. If certain ones
are included or excluded the resulting trees can differ substantially (and
they do).

This is the more realistic tree but it still leaves several orders hanging.

http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/...eltreemap.html

You have to realize that most of the trees are preliminary and tentative and
not all of the families (genera) are thoroughly studied and the trees are
already out-of-date. Most of what is posted on the Internet is second hand
info taken from old papers. Of course all if this remains meaningless and
mystical if you have no idea what the plants in the various orders actually
look like.

1. The primitive trimerous dicots. (maybe call them "Predicots" or
"Protodicots"?)
Amborellales
Nymphaeales
Austrobaileyales
Chloranthales
Magnoliales
Laurales
Cannellales
Piperales
Ceratophyllales

2. Monocots.
Acorales
Alismatales
Asparagales (Many of the families listed are amorphous with many of the
genera misplaced or considered to be of uncertain affinity. Several of the
families have been defined differently is recent papers.)
Dioscoreales
Liliales
Pandanales
Arecales
Poales
Commelinales (Haemodoraceae is polymorphic)
Zingiberales

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Eudicots")
Ranunculales to Dipsalales


Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message
...
In article m,
Cereoid+10 writes

Presently there are three primary clades of flowering plants recognized.

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.

2. Monocots.

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Core Eudicots")

It is the first clade that is in need of a simple easy to understand
name.

* It is also far from obvious that the first group is a clade, many
sources reckoning it as a paraphyletic group. Judd et al (1 edn, start
of chapter 8) give 6 alternative cladograms, in none of which are the
"primitive" dicots a clade.

Tree of Life

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Angiosp...=Spermatopsida

has yet another cladogram which has three basal lineages (Amborallales,
Nymphales and Austrobaileyales), and a pentachotomy in the
Euangiosperms. (It does have most of the primitive euangiosperms in a
tetrachotomous magnoliid clade.)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Website has a similar cladogram

http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/...apweb2map.html

I notice, that if you ignore the ANITA taxa, this has restored the
monocot-dicot dichotomy, with Ceratophyllales incertae sedis.

* Your trichotomy excludes some plants, viz. the basal eudicots. The
eudicots are the clade with primitively tricolpate pollen, not all of
which have 4-5-merous flowers. The Core Eudicots are a group therein,
excluding, at least, Gunnerales, Ranunculales and Proteales. Whether the
Core Eudicot clade is equivalent the clade which has primitively
4-5-merous flowers is the point under discussion; there's enough
variation in the floral morphology of non-rosid, non-asterid eudicots
that it is not obvious to me what the character polarities should be on
a cladogram.

So what if the AGP uses the name "Core Eudicots" for the true dicots. It
is
silly and redundant. As used in common botanical parlance, the term
"dicot"
has a much deeper meaning than just the number of seedling cotyledons.

Yes, it refers to a suite of traits which distinguishes the combination
of the basal angiosperms and tricolpates from the monocots, one of which
is the number of seedling cotyledons. (Not all of which are universal in
either group, due to subsequent changes of character states.)

Dicots are angiosperms minus monocots only in your antiquated
understanding.
The present concept is that dicots are (4-5 merous) angiosperms minus
monocots minus trimerous dicots.

Not on Tree of Life, not on Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, not in Judd et
al, nor in any other source I've seen. Have you a citation for this
"modernised" redefinition of the term dicot?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Sorry to inform you but to get to NYBG from where I live is at least a 4
hour drive on I 95 and at least an overnight stay. Would need to make
arrangements in advance too! The USA is a much larger country than yours. A
trip to the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress or Beltsville is much
easier for me.

I was asking for the link anyway, thanks.


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
Sorry to hear you cannot find the NYBG
(I always thought of it as a famous botanical garden:
it it IS a fairly large institute).

Try http://www.nybg.org/bsci/spub/catl/CATAL2.html#MEM
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
What is the link to the volume from the NYBG on fruit types ?

* It is also far from obvious that the first group is a clade, many
sources reckoning it as a paraphyletic group. Judd et al (1 edn, start
of chapter 8) give 6 alternative cladograms, in none of which are the
"primitive" dicots a clade.

Tree of Life

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Angiosp...=Spermatopsida

has yet another cladogram which has three basal lineages (Amborellales,
Nymphaeales and Austrobaileyales), and a pentachotomy in the
Euangiosperms. (It does have most of the primitive euangiosperms in a
tetrachotomous magnoliid clade.)

+ + +
The second edition of Judd &al also assumes the three basal lineages, a
magnoliid complex, monocots and eudicots. It leaves some loose ends in
Chloranthaceae and Ceratophyllales
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
Did you read the warning to the website?
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/

+ + +
Yes, we all read this. We knew it already
+ + +

Most of what is posted on the Internet is second hand info taken from old
papers.

+ + +
Most is not original, but not all.
Papers are not necessarily old either!
+ + +

Of course all if this remains meaningless and mystical if you have no idea
what the plants in the various orders actually look like.

+ + +
Up to a point it may be helpful to know what the plants look like.
Not sure it really is necessary
+ + +

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.
(maybe call them "Predicots" or "Protodicots"?)

+ + +
They are not all trimerous, note the most primitive group called the (as
Stewart Robert Hinsley pointed out) ANITA-group, eg Nymphaeaceae.
They are dicots, and can be called "primitive Angiosperms", etc
+ + +

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Eudicots")

+ + +
The Core Eudicots are 4-5 merous
The Basal Eudicots are a bit of a mess in this respect (see the start of
this thread)
PvR

Just because you read it that doesn't mean you understood it. It is
essential that one be familiar with the actual genera and species otherwise
the cladistics and family trees are total fantasy. Your accepting the
descriptions of the orders and families on faith is laughable because many
include misplaced genera, incorrect assumptions and errors. That they admit
much of what they cite has been based on second hand info is not
encouraging. Some of the recent papers actually compound the errors. They do
admit that whole scheme is tentative and provisional anyway and not gospel
set in stone. That the incomplete info has been copied into textbooks as if
it were fact is even more problematic.

No more than the so-called Eudicots strictly have only two cotyledons in all
genera and species.
Of course the primitive dicots do not all have strictly trimerous flowers.
Some of them have derived arrangements or are lacking parts. The floral
parts in Nymphaea are actually spirally arranged but they are trimerous in
most of the other genera in the family.

Stewart Robert Hinsley is the one who originally asked the question and was
confused by the family trees. Since when did he become the expert? His only
source of info has been the outdated info on the internet as has been yours.
Now, you are definitely wasting my time with stupid replies.


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
Cereoid+10 schreef
Did you read the warning to the website?
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/

+ + +
Yes, we all read this. We knew it already
+ + +

Most of what is posted on the Internet is second hand info taken from
old
papers.

+ + +
Most is not original, but not all.
Papers are not necessarily old either!
+ + +

Of course all if this remains meaningless and mystical if you have no
idea
what the plants in the various orders actually look like.

+ + +
Up to a point it may be helpful to know what the plants look like.
Not sure it really is necessary
+ + +

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.
(maybe call them "Predicots" or "Protodicots"?)

+ + +
They are not all trimerous, note the most primitive group called the (as
Stewart Robert Hinsley pointed out) ANITA-group, eg Nymphaeaceae.
They are dicots, and can be called "primitive Angiosperms", etc
+ + +

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Eudicots")

+ + +
The Core Eudicots are 4-5 merous
The Basal Eudicots are a bit of a mess in this respect (see the start of
this thread)
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
Just because you read it that doesn't mean you understood it.

+ + +
That is true enough. Understanding is something that must show in comments
made
+ + +

It is essential that one be familiar with the actual genera and species
otherwise the cladistics and family trees are total fantasy.

+ + +
A big statement. Actually "familiarity" with a taxon is something that comes
slowly. Even the world experts on certain families may learn something new
about 'their' families after decades of working on them. Following the
publication of the insights of the APG new characteristics are coming to the
fore as potentially important so that "familiarity" shifts in content and
gets a new meaning all the time.
+ + +

Your accepting the descriptions of the orders and families on faith is
laughable because many include misplaced genera, incorrect assumptions and
errors. That they admit much of what they cite has been based on second hand
info is not encouraging. Some of the recent papers actually compound the
errors. They do admit that whole scheme is tentative and provisional anyway
and not gospel set in stone. That the incomplete info has been copied into
textbooks as if it were fact is even more problematic.

+ + +
Sounds as if you could do a good job reporting errors you spot, allowing
these to be corrected?
+ + +

No more than the so-called Eudicots strictly have only two cotyledons in
all genera and species.

+ + +
It is the same for the eudicots as it was for the dicots. See earlier in
this thread
+ + +

Of course the primitive dicots do not all have strictly trimerous flowers.

+ + +
How good of you to acknowledge this
+ + +

Some of them have derived arrangements or are lacking parts.

+ + +
Slippery stuff, these assumptions about what character states are derived .
+ + +

The floral parts in Nymphaea are actually spirally arranged but they are
trimerous in most of the other genera in the family.

Stewart Robert Hinsley is the one who originally asked the question and
was confused by the family trees.

+ + +
Maybe you should reread the original question?
+ + +

Since when did he become the expert? His only source of info has been the
outdated info on the internet as has been yours. Now, you are definitely
wasting my time with stupid replies.

+ + +
Oh pardon us, oh exalted one, whose information sources are so much better
than the internet (which is a good thing since he cannot find even the NYBG
on the web)
PvR

In article ,
Cereoid+10 wrote:
Now, you are definitely wasting my time with stupid replies.

I see the problem now. This guy is confused about the difference
between net news and mail.

Cereoid+10, you not only do not need to respond to every posting here,
you are not required to waste your time reading them. If you feel
driven to correct every opinion or statement you disagree with, and
hope to convince other people that your opinion is more correct, you
will have more success by addressing the text and not the character,
intelligence or personality of the poster. Most people learn this well
before they are out of their teens.

You seem to gain some emotional benefit by trying to put people down,
perhaps so you can feel superior to them. This is transparently
obvious to everyone who reads your posts.

Now you can puff up your ego behind your pseudonym and blast me with a
diatribe that will (1) make you feel like you've triumphed (2)
demonstrate to everyone here what I've described above and (3) perhaps
cause a few more people who could contribute interestingly and
knowledgably to this group to decide not to. Every time I suggest you
mend your ways I get thank you notes from people like those mentioned
in (3).

Note that unlike you, I use my real name and affiliation in postings.

So, fire away!

I am not entirely without hope for Cereoid. He does know something, although
not nearly as much as he thinks he does: the real problem is that he cannot
deal with the uncertainty of not being in the know on ... anything.

Most persons who show this behaviour know very little. The fact that Cereoid
does know something is proof of some ability to learn, which leaves open the
possibility that he might learn to change his behaviour. Maybe he will just
learn to save his postings first and wait a few hours, then edit them before
posting. That would make a difference already. Maybe, in the long run, he
will even learn to stay on topic ...
PvR

You may learn eventually, but I guess it won't be today

A last remark: you allege I am goading you, but that certainly is not my
intention. I am just feeding you rope. Many things can be done with rope, if
it is desirable to do something with it. I cannot help it if you choose to
use this rope to hang yourself.
PvR