early angiosperms... early mammals... early bacteria

[Ken Kinman]

Dear John and other TAXACOMERS:
      I'll probably be sorry tomorrow for having posted
this when I am so tired, but if inspires some
discussion, it will be worth it.  I'm definitely going
to have to read up on Croizat.  But even if several
lineages of angiosperms evolved from "pre-angiosperms"
in parallel, one might be tempted to regard the latter
as genetic angiosperms (even if they did not
phenotypically display the "desired" angiosperm
characteristics one is looking for).   As long as there
are no gnetophytes (or Caytoniales) getting thrown into
the mix, I see no problem with regarding
"pre-angiosperms" as primitive members of Phylum
Magnoliophyta.  Doesn't that make sense?
----Unfortunately, the limitations of the fossil record
still make such discussions somewhat academic.  This
reminds me of how some mammalogists view the origins of
mammals, with some going so far as to classify
therapsids and pelycosaurs as primitive mammals (but few
find that extreme very useful).  Luckily the mammal
fossil record is comparatively rich, but even that does
not stop the bickering over where to "draw the line"
between mammals and reptiles.  Cutting a continuous tree
 of life is going to always be arbitrary to some extent
in my view (despite what some cladists might think).
But I'm getting way off the subject.  Even with a lot
more fossil data, and even molecular data, how to define
and delimit Phylum Magnoliophyta is probably always be
subject to differing views and interpretations.  I say
"viva la difference".
-----However, all of this is just minor quibbling
compared to my differences with Carl Woese, whose
eubacterial phylogenies are probably totally misrooted
(and I believe bacteriologists are in for a shock when
they finally realize how distorted his view really is).
That is why my homepage is almost totally dedicated to
bacterial evolution.  Although the bacterial
classification in my 1994 book was partly Woesian, it is
becoming less and less so, as I continue to separate the
"wheat from the chaff."   That is why I was so
disappointed that there was almost no discussion of the
Mayr vs. Woese debate on TAXACOM.  I've heard a few
comments that Mayr was too hard on Woese, but I
personally think he let him off too easy.  One thing
upon which I can definitely agree with Woese is that the
results of this debate could have an enormous impact on
the future of biology.  It is really something to which
all biologists should pay more attention.  This is
starting to sound like a sermon---I guess that means I'd
better stop.       A goodnight to all,
                          Kenneth E. Kinman
                          P.O. Box 1377
                          Hays, Kansas  67601
      homepage: www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5074

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com