Sacha writes

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
justify a split).

Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
'splitters' ;-)

How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350
--
Kay

In article ,
K writes:
|
| The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
| plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
| Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
| genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
| justify a split).
|
| Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
| 'splitters' ;-)
|
| How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
the plums.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
K writes:
|
| The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
| plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
| Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
| genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
| justify a split).
|
| Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
| 'splitters' ;-)
|
| How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
the plums.

Prunus - plums
Amygdalus - almond
Armeniaca - apricot
Persica - peach
Cerasus - cherries
Padus - more cherries
Laurocerasus - cherry laurels

(per Komarov, 1971, fide Lee & Wen 2001)

But a single genus has been the most common position for a long time
(e.g. Bentham & Hooker, 1865).

Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
on the topic see

http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
| half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
| that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
| the plums.
|
| Prunus - plums
| Amygdalus - almond
| Armeniaca - apricot
| Persica - peach
| Cerasus - cherries
| Padus - more cherries
| Laurocerasus - cherry laurels
|
| (per Komarov, 1971, fide Lee & Wen 2001)
|
| But a single genus has been the most common position for a long time
| (e.g. Bentham & Hooker, 1865).
|
| Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
| clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
| on the topic see
|
| http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf

Thanks. But it seems to be yet another single gene/whatever analysis,
and therefore as likely to be completely misleading as not!

Especially for a genus like Prunus :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
| half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
| that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
| the plums.
|
| Prunus - plums
| Amygdalus - almond
| Armeniaca - apricot
| Persica - peach
| Cerasus - cherries
| Padus - more cherries
| Laurocerasus - cherry laurels
|
| (per Komarov, 1971, fide Lee & Wen 2001)
|
| But a single genus has been the most common position for a long time
| (e.g. Bentham & Hooker, 1865).
|
| Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
| clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
| on the topic see
|
| http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf

Thanks. But it seems to be yet another single gene/whatever analysis,
and therefore as likely to be completely misleading as not!

I did say that it "doesn't look well resolved". However, as a point of
order, two genes (ndhF and ITS) were used. (From what I've seen
elsewhere ndhF is too conservative to be ideal at this level.)

Especially for a genus like Prunus :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
| |
| | Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
| | clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
| | on the topic see
| |
| | http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf
|
| Thanks. But it seems to be yet another single gene/whatever analysis,
| and therefore as likely to be completely misleading as not!
|
| I did say that it "doesn't look well resolved". However, as a point of
| order, two genes (ndhF and ITS) were used. (From what I've seen
| elsewhere ndhF is too conservative to be ideal at this level.)

Oh, it wasn't a criticism of you! And my point is statistical, not
molecular - the chances of a single characteristic being misleading
about the ancestry of an organism are very high indeed. It's not
possible to give numbers without more data, but I could explain why
fairly easily.

Of course, uk.rec.gardening is not precisely the group for fairly
advanced statistical concepts, but what the hell? :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , K
writes
Sacha writes

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species
of Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the
same genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
justify a split).

Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
'splitters' ;-)

How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Fide Wikipedia Prunus has 430 species. (I would have guessed 100-200.)

Hibiscus has about 300 (there's a proposal which would take it up to
700). Veronica 500. Euphorbia over 2000. Acacia over 1000 (but that
might be before it was broken, but the rump Acacia is much the biggest
of the new genera). Senecio 1500 (but that's likely to be broken up).
Vernonia of the order of 1000.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley