You forgot to mention:

x Anthrichaerophyllum P.Fournier, Quatre Fl. France 663 (1937)
(Apiaceae (Umbelliferae): Anthriscus X Chaerophyllum)

There are also other intergeneric crosses known only by formula.

Knobloch, I.W. (1972) INTERGENERIC HYBRIDIZATION IN FLOWERING PLANTS. Taxon
21 (1): 97-103.



Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matthew Montchalin writes
Intergeneric hybrids have been
|reported in the Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) and in the closely allied
|Araliaceae.

Have these reports been published relatively recently? In the last
five years or so?

x Fatshedera (Araliaceae: Fatsia x Hedera) was described in 1923.

[Citation ex IPNI: Guillaumin, Journ. Soc. Nat. Hort. France, Ser. IV.
xxiv. 524 (1923)]
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"The question is certainly off-topic on rec.gardens.edible..."

That's probably why Matthew cross-posted his question to sci.bio.botany!!!!

Matthew certainly did ask a question that has an answer much bigger than he
can handle.
Then again, the learning process has to start somewhere!

Even you are learning something new, Henrietta!
You might consider taking Beano for that "old fart" problem you have!

http://www.beano.net/


Henriette Kress wrote in message
newsan.2003.07.19.18.07.17.770348@hetta...
Cereoid-UR12- wrote:

I suppose it would be asking too much for a poster I could slap up
on the wall, detailing the branches, but then again... How does
a person generally go about judging how genetically distant any
two genera are, let alone species?

Sorry Henrietta but a degree in botany is not required for one to
hybridize
plants. There are scores of amateur and professional plant hybridizers
in
the world who don't have degrees.

He didn't want to hybridize anything. He wanted a picture of all the
genera in botany, showing just how they are related to each other, and how
close they are genetically.
Dunno how old he is, but that's a tall order for somebody who doesn't know
if cilantro and parsley belong to the Apiaceae.

Anyway, such a pretty picture would certainly be possible if botanists
could only agree on genera ... and it's possible that such beasts are
available online, but by what I can see, Matthew didn't even try a google
search.

And I'm an old enough fart that my reaction to a question that requires
years and years of research is to tell'em to do it themselves. Ditto for
questions that can be answered with a simple web search, which I have no
idea if this one is... but neither does Matthew, eh?

Whatever. The question is certainly off-topic on rec.gardens.edible...
follow-up set.

Henriette

--
Henriette Kress, AHG Helsinki, Finland
Henriette's herbal homepage: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Henriette Kress wrote:
| I suppose it would be asking too much for a poster I could slap up
| on the wall, detailing the branches, but then again... How does
| a person generally go about judging how genetically distant any
| two genera are, let alone species?
|
|One attends a university, specializes in botany, and starts to study
|the branch one is interested in.

Not that your answer comes close to addressing my question, but while
we are on the subject, which universities have your stamp of approval?

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Cereoid-UR12- wrote:
|Sorry Henrietta but a degree in botany is not required for one to
|hybridize plants.

Degrees in botany are not necessary for marketing such hybrid plants,
either.

|There are scores of amateur and professional plant hybridizers in
|the world who don't have degrees.

Thereby making the world a better place to live in.

|You may be shocked to know that Luther Burbank never had a degree
|in botany or horticulture but he was able to make many outstanding
|plant hybrids that are still being grown to this day.
|
|After reading over his memoirs, it quickly became clear to me that
|Burbank could have done much more if had a clearer understanding of
|botany but he was still able to make a fortune anyway.

That is an encouraging thought.

|To become better aquatinted with the phylogeny of the genera of
|Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) (and the allied Apiaceae), one should read
|over the taxonomic and cytological articles written on the family,
|find out exactly on what is the basis for the genera, find out what
|intergeneric crosses have already been made and just go ahead and do
|experimental crosses to see what happens.

Okay.

|You may want to look in the Agricola database for some leads.
|
|The recent creation of the snap pea was the result of someone who
|went ahead and made what originally seemed to be frivolous crosses
|between traditional seed peas and oriental pod peas. A whole new
|type of commercially viable pea was created instead. You never
|know what you might get unless you try.

Success stories are always encouraging.

Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
Judging by the results of a quick google, any such picture would be
inaccurate. The classification of Apiaceae, Araliaceae and allies is
being reworked in the light of DNA sequence data.

+ + +
Quite
+ + +

(Apparently one subfamily has been moved from Apiaceae to Araliaceae.)

+ + +
What has happened is that they have been shoved together to become one
family.

The traditional perspective is that the woody (tending to be (sub)tropical)
species are in Araliaceae, while the herbaceous (temperate) species are in
Umbelliferae. This proved not to be tenable and the whole was lumped
together. Further research that there are five distinct groups with
Umbelliferae and Araliaceae each monophyletic (from one ancestor) and three
small groups of which Hydrocotyle is the well-known one. So there are three
basic positions
1) traditional: split the whole in two families: Araliaceae and Umbelliferae
2) APG: lump the whole together as Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)
3) radical: split the whole into five families, among which Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae in their traditional delimitation.
+ + +

Diagrams of parts of the cladogram should be available in the literature,
but whether they've all been put together is another matter. And generic
limits are apparently in need of revision.

+ + ++ + +
Depends on what you mean by all. Anything that gives an overview applies
only to higher levels. Don't know about limits of genera.
PvR
+ + +

Apiaceae has a pollen record back to the Eocene, and Araliaceae into the
Upper Cretaceous.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

That nobody has provided a useful link to more info about the Apiaceae
(Umbelliferae) is a disappointment.

Try this link for much more info on the Apiales!

http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/URC/arc.htm



P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
Judging by the results of a quick google, any such picture would be
inaccurate. The classification of Apiaceae, Araliaceae and allies is
being reworked in the light of DNA sequence data.

+ + +
Quite
+ + +

(Apparently one subfamily has been moved from Apiaceae to Araliaceae.)

+ + +
What has happened is that they have been shoved together to become one
family.

The traditional perspective is that the woody (tending to be
(sub)tropical)
species are in Araliaceae, while the herbaceous (temperate) species are in
Umbelliferae. This proved not to be tenable and the whole was lumped
together. Further research that there are five distinct groups with
Umbelliferae and Araliaceae each monophyletic (from one ancestor) and
three
small groups of which Hydrocotyle is the well-known one. So there are
three
basic positions
1) traditional: split the whole in two families: Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae
2) APG: lump the whole together as Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)
3) radical: split the whole into five families, among which Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae in their traditional delimitation.
+ + +

Diagrams of parts of the cladogram should be available in the
literature,
but whether they've all been put together is another matter. And generic
limits are apparently in need of revision.

+ + ++ + +
Depends on what you mean by all. Anything that gives an overview applies
only to higher levels. Don't know about limits of genera.
PvR
+ + +

Apiaceae has a pollen record back to the Eocene, and Araliaceae into the
Upper Cretaceous.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Citing your source is always helpful.

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/2/273


Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message
...
In article pan.2003.07.19.18.07.17.770348@hetta, Henriette Kress
writes

Anyway, such a pretty picture would certainly be possible if botanists
could only agree on genera ... and it's possible that such beasts are
available online, but by what I can see, Matthew didn't even try a google
search.


Judging by the results of a quick google, any such picture would be
inaccurate. The classification of Apiaceae, Araliaceae and allies is
being reworked in the light of DNA sequence data. (Apparently one
subfamily has been moved from Apiaceae to Araliaceae.) Diagrams of parts
of the cladogram should be available in the literature, but whether
they've all been put together is another matter. And generic limits are
apparently in need of revision.

Apiaceae has a pollen record back to the Eocene, and Araliaceae into the
Upper Cretaceous.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

You must be easily disappointed, then! It is a pretty enough site but with
little immediately useful information on the topic at hand. The publication
gives a lot more insight.

Why not try the trusty
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html
and hit Apiales?

PvR

Cereoid-UR12- schreef
That nobody has provided a useful link to more info about the Apiaceae
(Umbelliferae) is a disappointment.

Try this link for much more info on the Apiales!

http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/URC/arc.htm

========
P van Rijckevorsel wrote
What has happened is that they have been shoved together to become one
family.

The traditional perspective is that the woody (tending to be
(sub)tropical) species are in Araliaceae, while the herbaceous (temperate)
species are in Umbelliferae. This proved not to be tenable and the whole was
lumped together. Further research that there are five distinct groups with
Umbelliferae and Araliaceae each monophyletic (from one ancestor) and three
small groups of which Hydrocotyle is the well-known one. So there are three
basic positions
1) traditional: split the whole in two families: Araliaceae and Umbelliferae
2) APG: lump the whole together as Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)
3) radical: split the whole into five families, among which Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae in their traditional delimitation.
PvR

If that website doesn't leave him totally confused, nothing will, eh
Rinkytink?


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
You must be easily disappointed, then! It is a pretty enough site but with
little immediately useful information on the topic at hand. The
publication
gives a lot more insight.

Why not try the trusty
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html
and hit Apiales?

PvR

Cereoid-UR12- schreef
That nobody has provided a useful link to more info about the Apiaceae
(Umbelliferae) is a disappointment.

Try this link for much more info on the Apiales!

http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/URC/arc.htm

========
P van Rijckevorsel wrote
What has happened is that they have been shoved together to become one
family.

The traditional perspective is that the woody (tending to be
(sub)tropical) species are in Araliaceae, while the herbaceous (temperate)
species are in Umbelliferae. This proved not to be tenable and the whole
was
lumped together. Further research that there are five distinct groups with
Umbelliferae and Araliaceae each monophyletic (from one ancestor) and
three
small groups of which Hydrocotyle is the well-known one. So there are
three
basic positions
1) traditional: split the whole in two families: Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae
2) APG: lump the whole together as Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)
3) radical: split the whole into five families, among which Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae in their traditional delimitation.
PvR

Cereoid-UR12- schreef
If that website doesn't leave him totally confused, nothing will, eh
Rinkytink?

+ + +
Surely he was already lost beyond redemption when somebody posted:

Citing your source is always helpful.

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/2/273

What is the poor guy who wanted to come up with a different-tasting parsley
to think of that?
PvR

P van Rijckevorsel schreef
So there are three basic positions
1) traditional: split the whole in two families: Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae
2) APG: lump the whole together as Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)
3) radical: split the whole into five families, among which Araliaceae and
Umbelliferae in their traditional delimitation.

+ + +
I see that the APG II adopted position 3 (but 4 instead of 5 families).
I did not think they had it in them!
PvR

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
|Cereoid-UR12- schreef
| If that website doesn't leave him totally confused, nothing will, eh
| Rinkytink?
|
|+ + +
|Surely he was already lost beyond redemption when somebody posted:
|
| Citing your source is always helpful.
|
| http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/2/273
|
|What is the poor guy who wanted to come up with a different-tasting
|parsley to think of that?

I'll let you know when I get around to plugging a mouse into my
computer, and try going there.

Don't disappoint us, Matthew.

A mouse usually already comes with the computer nowadays.

So hook that bad boy up ASAP.

How can you even navigate without "point & click"?


Matthew Montchalin wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
|Cereoid-UR12- schreef
| If that website doesn't leave him totally confused, nothing will, eh
| Rinkytink?
|
|+ + +
|Surely he was already lost beyond redemption when somebody posted:
|
| Citing your source is always helpful.
|
| http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/2/273
|
|What is the poor guy who wanted to come up with a different-tasting
|parsley to think of that?

I'll let you know when I get around to plugging a mouse into my
computer, and try going there.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Cereoid-UR12- wrote:
|Don't disappoint us, Matthew.
|
|A mouse usually already comes with the computer nowadays.
|
|So hook that bad boy up ASAP.
|
|How can you even navigate without "point & click"?

How did you manage to post that? Pointed & clicked? hmmm...
I've *heard* about those kinds of computers, just wouldn't figure
anybody would actually use one...

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Cereoid-UR12- wrote:
|Don't disappoint us, Matthew.
|
|A mouse usually already comes with the computer nowadays.
|
|So hook that bad boy up ASAP.
|
|How can you even navigate without "point & click"?

How did you manage to post that? Pointed & clicked? hmmm...
I've *heard* about those kinds of computers, just wouldn't figure
anybody would actually use one...