[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)

[Kim van der Linde]

I think this question is impossible to answer without knowing the wider 
context. I normally prefer some consistency such that the clade of the 
same rank are comparable in characteristics such as age, degree of 
divergence in morphological characteristics etc. Whether a clade is 
speciose or not is not crucial for me.

Kim

On 2/15/2011 9:58 PM, Kenneth Kinman 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
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com