[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[Thomas G. Lammers]

At 09:03 AM 1/19/2007, Maarten Christenhusz wrote:
>I also noticed that mostly when a phylogeny at the family level is 
>attempted, the type genus is neglected, and these families have not always 
>been tested for monophyly. This can be seen even more commonly at the 
>generic level, where at least the type species of the genus should be 
>included, before any taxonomic conclusions can be drawn.

I could not agree more.  We have a well-established system for the 
application of names to taxa.  Those doing phylogenetic analyses will 
greatly facilitate applying names to the clades they uncover if they will 
take the simple precaution of including the types of all relevant 
supraspecific names among their examplars.  Doing so would greatly 
alleviate the need for such ill-conceived and foolish end-runs around the 
rules as the "PhyloCode."


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Associate 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:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and 
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous