[Taxacom] Herbarium sequence revisited

[Peter Stevens]

>
>
>At 02:50 AM 6/6/2006, Chapman, Alex wrote:
>>My interpretation of these previous discussions is that most contributors
>>believed that a systematic sequence (as opposed to alphabetic) was the
>>preferred one if the opportunity arose, however, adoption of APG may be
>>premature (as at January 2002).  In June 2006, my feeling is that the
>>basic ordinal framework is now strongly supported and unlikely to change
>>topology in any radical way.  However, as Peter Stevens acknowledged in
>>1999, "even with the APG system, there are very, very many ways of
>>arranging families in a linear sequence".  My question is - has anyone
>>attempted to define a linear sequence of families aligned to the APG II
>>ordinal framework (and below) and has it been implemented in a herbarium
>>of reasonable size?  If so, what is the user experience - for both
>>curators and visitors.  If it was considered but rejected as an option,
>>what were the perceived problems (and what system was subsequently adopted)?
>>Our team here would value any insights TAXACOM list members may have on
>>this subject.
>
>Here is a totally radical thought, that basically just represents thinking
>out loud.
>
>Basic premise: a linear sequence seems antithetical to our tree-like model
>of evolution, yet some of us desire that thearrangement of families relate
>to phylogeny.
>
>Would it be at all possible to arrange cabinets not in linear rows, but in
>*clusters*???   Islands representing the various APG II orders?  And the
>allied clusters nmearer one another?  It would probably be terribly
>wasteful of floor space, but that might depend on the footprint
>available.  In some spaces, would it perhaps be a more efficient use of
>space?? (I have a hard time conceptualizing in 3-D so I can't say.)
>
>In any case, it might be something to consider, for folks who have rejected
>the ease and convenience of the alphabet.
>
>
>Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.


I know of a couple of herbaria that are all or in part APG, and 
another large herbaria that is working on a sequence.  Some botanic 
gardens in the 19thC tried to have plantings along the lines you 
suggest for herbarium cabinets, and I have heard suggestions for 
doing something similar for contemporary botanic gardens.,

Given the problem of converting a phylogeny to a linear sequence, why 
not simply have phylogenies on the herbarium doors?  The best you 
could do with cabinets would be a sort of Dahlgrenogram in iron.

And a somewhat less serious suggestion, in the foyer/lobby of the 
herbarium building, which would be like that of a McMansion and the 
height of the whole building, you could have a gigantic mobile with 
the ultimate units families; the branches of the mobile would 
represent sister group relationships (you would still have to work in 
a few polychotomies).  That would really show you relationships, as 
things twisted about in the breeze.  Or better still, get an old 
aircraft hanger and have the herbarium cabinets themselves on 
mobiles....

P.