[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)

[Richard Jensen]

I agree with Jim.  If there is evidence to support the order, then keep 
it or make a decision to adopt APG II as your framework.

Dick J

On 2/16/2011 5:32 AM, Jim Croft wrote:
> Preference? So, Angiosperm phylogeny is a popularity contest now?
>
> What ever happened to that quaint archaic notion of evidence as a
> trigger for change?
>
> jim
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Kenneth Kinman<kennethkinman at webtv.net>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>       Since I haven't updated my angiosperm classification in almost 2
>> years, I was looking at some possible changes, especially some minor
>> coding changes.
>>        However, in the process, I also began to wonder about whether to
>> continue separating Order Campanulales from Order Asterales (which were
>> merged in APG II).  Although Order Campanulales may now only include two
>> families (Campanulaceae and Rousseaceae), it is still rather speciose.
>>      Anyway, I have no strong inclination one way or the other in this
>> case.  So I wonder if any taxacomers have any preferences one way or the
>> other?  Lump Order Campanulales into Asterales, or keep them as separate
>> sister Orders?
>>             --------Cheers,
>>                             Ken Kinman
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>
>

-- 
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674