Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
... mel turner schreef As so it will probably stay [being traditionally a member of Acacia subgenus Acacia, it's thus part of a group that will remain "true Acacias" by definition, i.e., the group containing the type species of the genus]. If anything is to stay a member of the genus Acacia, it will be they. *** No * * * "No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. Maslin, et al. [2003] indicate that the genus_Acaciella_ is based on _Acacia_ subg. _Aculeiferum_ sect. _Filicinae_. This is reportedly a largely Mexican group, but other Acacia s.l. groups do occur in the New World, including the SW USA: TITLE: Geographical patterns in neotropical Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Rico-Arce,-Lourdes [Author,-Reprint-Author] SOURCE: Australian-Systematic-Botany. 2003; 16(1): 41-48 ABSTRACT: Native neotropical species of Acacia, totalling 230 species, are represented by two subgenera, Acacia and Aculeiferum. The number of taxa per country and their distribution are presented. For subgenus Aculeiferum, the species of section Filicinae are the richest in Mexico, while species of section Monacanthea are the most diverse in Brazil, Bolivia and Mexico. The species of subgenus Acacia have three main areas of diversity, with Mesoamerica being the most important region for the myrmecophyllous species and Mexico, the United States and Cuba for the non-myrmecophyllous species. So, the famous tropical American "ant-acacias" are in _Acacia_ subg. _Acacia_. Other papers [cited in an earlier post] indicated that _A. farnesiana_ was in subgenus _Acacia_, and not in subg. _Aculeiferum_ sect. _Filicinae_ [= Acaciella]. In fact, Bukhari, et al. [1999] said that their DNA study showed that _A. farnesiana_ is the sister species to _Acacia nilotica_ [the type species of the genus _Acacia_]. [snip] cheers |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
mel turner schreef
"No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? *** Well, I can try. * * * No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, *** No, that is not it. That is correct, as far as it goes. * * * or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? *** This too is eminently correct, but you are missing something * * * With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. *** I checked, and indeed Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in Acaciella, although other American species will. Sorry to be so mysterious. I am just curious to see how fast the word spreads PvR |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"P van Rijckevorsel"
wrote in message ... mel turner schreef "No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? *** Well, I can try. * * * Thanks. No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, *** No, that is not it. That is correct, as far as it goes. * * * or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? *** This too is eminently correct, but you are missing something * * * Okay, now I get it [way to be coy!], having looked further, e.g.: http://treesociety.mweb.co.zw/news.htm and http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL35/sep04-7.html & esp. http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/taxonomy/ So, Orchard and Maslin [2003] have proposed conserving the generic name _Acacia_ with a new type species [A. penninervis], one of the phyllode-bearing species, in place of the earlier-accepted type species A. nilotica. [This asking for an special exemption from the usual rules of nomenclatural may rankle a bit, I suppose, but their proposal has the advantage of requiring many fewer name changes. There are far fewer species in Acacia subgenus Acacia than there are in the phyllode-bearing group]. If their proposal is ratified and adopted [which seems likely, although there are a few steps remaining] then apparently the genus name _Vachellia_ will be used for the former "Acacia subgenus Acacia", and the name _Acacia_ will become restricted to the phyllode-bearing clade [again, which includes some species without phyllodes]. With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. *** I checked, and indeed Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in Acaciella, although other American species will. Sorry to be so mysterious. I am just curious to see how fast the word spreads Word of Orchard & Maslin's proposal, and its progress through the botanical legal system? Orchard, A.E. and Maslin, B.R. (2003). Proposal to conserve the name Acacia Mill. (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) with a new type. Taxon 52: 362 - 363. http://taddeo.ingentaselect.com/vl=2...v52n2/s31/p362 http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/taxonomy/ http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infog...chronology.php cheers |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
If their proposal is ratified and adopted [which seems likely, although
there are a few steps remaining] then apparently the genus name _Vachellia_ will be used for the former "Acacia subgenus Acacia", and the name _Acacia_ will become restricted to the phyllode-bearing clade [again, which includes some species without phyllodes]. Word of Orchard & Maslin's proposal, and its progress through the botanical legal system? *** This one is indeed pretty comprehensive http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL35/sep04-7.html The report in Taxon was published about a month - six weeks back. (Taxon 53: 826-829. 2004) Also http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/taxonomy...rved-2004.html pvR |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in
Acaciella, although other American species will. That's good. Mine are beginning to take on the classic Old World Acacia style, and I wouldn't want to upset them. Thank goodness they don't attract ants. ;-) Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in
Acaciella, although other American species will. Iris Cohen schreef in That's good. Mine are beginning to take on the classic Old World Acacia style, and I wouldn't want to upset them. Thank goodness they don't attract ants. ;-) *** As pointed out A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World relatives PvR |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World relatives
Oy Va............ Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World
relatives Iris Cohen schreef Oy Va............ *** Likely it will be years before you have to deal with it. Don't panic. PvR |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Forgotten plant name - any help plz | United Kingdom | |||
Needed plant clipping in Canada PLZ | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Need some plant suggestions plz | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Needed plant clipping in Canada PLZ | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Need some plant suggestions plz | Freshwater Aquaria Plants |