[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)

[Richard Jensen]

I guess if the Association of Professional Genealogists, in their 3rd 
(sorry for the mistaken reference to their second) version, have 
declared these to be a single order, then so be it.  ;-)

Given the cladogram on which the classification is based, I understand 
Ken's point.  Whether we treat these putatively monophyletic groups as 
one order or two would seem to be a matter of preference, not evidence.  
There is no rule I am aware of for deciding if the two groups in 
question are treated as two suborders or as orders.

Dick J

On 2/16/2011 10:12 AM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> Dear All,
>        It is not a matter of evidence in this case.  The present evidence
> seems to show that Order Campanulales (families Campanulaceae and
> Rousseaceae) is sister group to my more traditional Order Asterales, and
> this is how I coded it in my 2009 classification.
>        However, one could also treat them as sister Suborders rather than
> sister Orders.  This would yield one very large Order Asterales (as APG
> started doing in its second version).   The evidence is the same either
> way, so it is just a matter of rank (and whether one doesn't mind
> sinking another Order into synonymy when it isn't really necessary).
> This is a matter of lumping vs. splitting, not evidence.
>              -------------Ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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