Of which group of angiosperms, is the trait of a 4- or 5-merous
perianth, of two morphologically distinct whorls, an apomorphy?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

A wheel has come off here?
Aren't you the one who is supposed to answer such questions, rather than
pose them?

Not sure this question has a real answer: the "Basal tricolpates" are
something of a mess in this respect with Menispermaceae having a 3-merous
perianth, as well as Berberidaceae, etc.

I will play it safe and quote from Judd & al (Plant Systematics, a
phylogenetic approach, 2nd ed, 2002):
"Core Eudicots:
[...] These plants have usually 4-5 merous flowers with the perianth
differentiated into a calyx and a corolla; placentation is ususally axile"
p307-308

PvR

=========
Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
Of which group of angiosperms, is the trait of a 4- or 5-merous
perianth, of two morphologically distinct whorls, an apomorphy?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:18685

In article , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
A wheel has come off here?
Aren't you the one who is supposed to answer such questions, rather than
pose them?

If there's a question on phylogeny I can refer to Judd et al, or MOBOT,
or grab sequences off EMBL and analyse them myself, but when it comes to
more traditional bits of botany such as floral anatomy I haven't yet got
myself properly trained.

Not sure this question has a real answer: the "Basal tricolpates" are
something of a mess in this respect with Menispermaceae having a 3-merous
perianth, as well as Berberidaceae, etc.

That's why I was asking. I didn't find it obvious whether a 4- or 5-
merous, biseriate, differentiated, perianth was basal to the
tricolpates, with derived flower types within many basal taxa, or
whether it is a homoplasy shared by several clades therein. Someone
might have done a study on this, perhaps supported by developmental
evidence.

I will play it safe and quote from Judd & al (Plant Systematics, a
phylogenetic approach, 2nd ed, 2002):

I tried the 1st edn for an answer. Large chunks of Ranunculales have a
5-merous, biseriate, differentiated perianth, but the rest of
Ranunculales seems to be 3-merous. Platanaceae are 3- to 7-merous, and
Proteaceae are uniseriate.

Moving into the core eudicots, Vitales does has a 4- or 5-merous,
biseriate, differentiated perianth, but Caryphyllales are uniseriate,
except for Cactaceae, which is multiseriate. Within Polygonales
Droseraceae is 5-merous, but Polygonaceae is 6-merous. Saxifragales,
Rosids and Asterids are mostly 4- or 5-merous, but Santales don't
regularly fit this pattern.

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Site at MOBOT has Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids
as a weakly supported clade. Which sort of suggests it's a homoplasy of
Ranuculaceae (in part), Droseraceae, Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids, and
Asterids.

"Core Eudicots:
[...] These plants have usually 4-5 merous flowers with the perianth
differentiated into a calyx and a corolla; placentation is ususally axile"
p307-308

The book's got bigger since the 1st edn. Core eudicots start at page
238, and the only synapomorphies mentioned are cpDNA sequences.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

P van Rijckevorsel writes
A wheel has come off here?
Aren't you the one who is supposed to answer such questions, rather than
pose them?

Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef:
If there's a question on phylogeny I can refer to Judd et al, or MOBOT,
or grab sequences off EMBL and analyse them myself, but when it comes to
more traditional bits of botany such as floral anatomy I haven't yet got
myself properly trained.

+ + +
You might take it to taxacom? Don't know if this will help, but would allow
Peter Stevens to pitch in if he feels like it.
+ + +

Not sure this question has a real answer: the "Basal tricolpates" are
something of a mess in this respect with Menispermaceae having a 3-merous
perianth, as well as Berberidaceae, etc.

That's why I was asking. I didn't find it obvious whether a 4- or
5-merous, biseriate, differentiated, perianth was basal to the tricolpates,
with derived flower types within many basal taxa, or whether it is a
homoplasy shared by several clades therein. Someone might have done a study
on this, perhaps supported by developmental evidence.

+ + +
The APG system is very grand about making sweeping statements, but a lot of
detail still needs to be filled in. Someone might indeed have done a study
.... or not.
+ + +


I will play it safe and quote from Judd & al (Plant Systematics, a
phylogenetic approach, 2nd ed, 2002):

I tried the 1st edn for an answer. Large chunks of Ranunculales have a
5-merous, biseriate, differentiated perianth, but the rest of
Ranunculales seems to be 3-merous. Platanaceae are 3- to 7-merous, and
Proteaceae are uniseriate.

Moving into the core eudicots, Vitales does has a 4- or 5-merous,
biseriate, differentiated perianth, but Caryphyllales are uniseriate,
except for Cactaceae, which is multiseriate. Within Polygonales
Droseraceae is 5-merous, but Polygonaceae is 6-merous. Saxifragales,
Rosids and Asterids are mostly 4- or 5-merous, but Santales don't
regularly fit this pattern.

+ + +
Isn't Santalales (see also http://www.science.siu.edu/parasitic-plants/) one
of those orders that is notorious for not fitting? With up to 6 cotyledons,
IIRC?
+ + +

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Site at MOBOT has Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids as
a weakly supported clade. Which sort of suggests it's a homoplasy of
Ranuculaceae (in part), Droseraceae, Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids, and
Asterids.


"Core Eudicots:
[...] These plants have usually 4-5 merous flowers with the perianth
differentiated into a calyx and a corolla; placentation is ususally axile"
p307-308

The book's got bigger since the 1st edn. Core eudicots start at page
238, and the only synapomorphies mentioned are cpDNA sequences.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +
Yes, I have yet to track exactly what the extra hundred pages are used for,
but it is distinctly bigger. Times change ...
PvR

If there's a question on phylogeny I can refer to Judd et al, or MOBOT,
or grab sequences off EMBL and analyse them myself, but when it comes to
more traditional bits of botany such as floral anatomy I haven't yet got
myself properly trained.
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +
On the other hand you might sit yourself down with Cronquist's magnum opus
or Kubitzki and look up all the details?
PvR

( *Rank-Amateur Alert* )

My wife is grower/manager for the cactus/succulent division of a large company.
I listen to her babble off about what critter is related to whatever; and not
much of cacti taxonomy makes sense to me.

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

thanx much
Worf & me


except for Cactaceae, which is multiseriate. Within Polygonales
Droseraceae is 5-merous, but Polygonaceae is 6-merous. Saxifragales,
Rosids and Asterids are mostly 4- or 5-merous, but Santales don't
regularly fit this pattern.

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Site at MOBOT has Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids
as a weakly supported clade. Which sort of suggests it's a homoplasy of
Ranuculaceae (in part), Droseraceae, Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids, and
Asterids.

"Core Eudicots:
[...] These plants have usually 4-5 merous flowers with the perianth
differentiated into a calyx and a corolla; placentation is ususally axile"
p307-308

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

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
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

Plant taxonomy is an empirical science.
So: take a look at the data set, draw up a hypothesis, check this against an
expanded dataset and evaluate for descriptive and predictive quality.

Logic is of limited value, when measured against reality. Just a tool.

Criteria are whatever works best. New criteria are accepted all the time.
Once upon a time it was thought that all the trees MUST be related. These
days it is chloroplast DNA that give best results, with morphology being
reexamined to fit the new picture. Over the horizon are new sets of
DNA-data.
PvR

BJocon schreef
( *Rank-Amateur Alert* )

My wife is grower/manager for the cactus/succulent division of a large
company. I listen to her babble off about what critter is related to
whatever; and not much of cacti taxonomy makes sense to me.

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

thanx much
Worf & me

Not exactly. You really should take an actual look at the flowers before
assuming the books are correct.

In the Cactaceae, the floral parts are spirally arranged with the leaves
grading into the bracts, the sepaloid tepals and petaloid tepals.
Essentially they are derived from an apetalous-asepalous ancestor. The
floral parts are not whorled so they cannot properly be called multiseriate.

In the Portulacaceae, Didieraceae, Basellaceae and Polygonaceae, the true
petals are absent, the whorl of sepals are petaloid and paired bracts are
sepaloid. In the Polygonaceae you have 3-4 petaloid sepals and 2 bracts
mimicking a 5-6 merous flower.

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

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

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


Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message
...
In article , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
A wheel has come off here?
Aren't you the one who is supposed to answer such questions, rather than
pose them?

If there's a question on phylogeny I can refer to Judd et al, or MOBOT,
or grab sequences off EMBL and analyse them myself, but when it comes to
more traditional bits of botany such as floral anatomy I haven't yet got
myself properly trained.

Not sure this question has a real answer: the "Basal tricolpates" are
something of a mess in this respect with Menispermaceae having a 3-merous
perianth, as well as Berberidaceae, etc.

That's why I was asking. I didn't find it obvious whether a 4- or 5-
merous, biseriate, differentiated, perianth was basal to the
tricolpates, with derived flower types within many basal taxa, or
whether it is a homoplasy shared by several clades therein. Someone
might have done a study on this, perhaps supported by developmental
evidence.

I will play it safe and quote from Judd & al (Plant Systematics, a
phylogenetic approach, 2nd ed, 2002):

I tried the 1st edn for an answer. Large chunks of Ranunculales have a
5-merous, biseriate, differentiated perianth, but the rest of
Ranunculales seems to be 3-merous. Platanaceae are 3- to 7-merous, and
Proteaceae are uniseriate.

Moving into the core eudicots, Vitales does has a 4- or 5-merous,
biseriate, differentiated perianth, but Caryphyllales are uniseriate,
except for Cactaceae, which is multiseriate. Within Polygonales
Droseraceae is 5-merous, but Polygonaceae is 6-merous. Saxifragales,
Rosids and Asterids are mostly 4- or 5-merous, but Santales don't
regularly fit this pattern.

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Site at MOBOT has Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids
as a weakly supported clade. Which sort of suggests it's a homoplasy of
Ranuculaceae (in part), Droseraceae, Saxifragales+Vitales+Rosids, and
Asterids.

"Core Eudicots:
[...] These plants have usually 4-5 merous flowers with the perianth
differentiated into a calyx and a corolla; placentation is ususally
axile"
p307-308

The book's got bigger since the 1st edn. Core eudicots start at page
238, and the only synapomorphies mentioned are cpDNA sequences.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

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

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
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

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

No, they are more analogous to figs, to which they are often compared.


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
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??

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

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

Cereoid+10 schreef
Problem with English here.

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

The primitive 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.

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

P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
+ + +
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