Fwd: Re: Different codes (and eudicots)

[Thomas Lammers]

At 06:09 AM 10/21/00 -0400, you wrote:

Even the cotyledon number does not reliably distinguish monocots from
>dicots.  At least one dicot (Claytonia virginica) usually has only
>one cotyledon (see J. Arnold Arboretum 50: 588 (1969)), and I am told
>there are other exceptions as well.

Bill Burger recently has argued that the single cotyledon of monocots is
*not* homologous to either dicot cotyledon.  If the single cotyledon of
Claytonia is merely what remains after one member of the pair is lost, then
monocotyledony, properly defined, would still be a good synapomorphy for
Liliopsida.  (Interesting that this would show up in the premiere example
of a plant with No Respect for Its Chromosome Number).


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous