[Taxacom] Grass taxonomy (paraphylophobia strikes again??)

[Ken Kinman]

Hi Alan,       The major problem in many such cases is making name changes prematurely (based on a limited number of taxa and just one line of molecular evidence).  As Mary noted, chloroplast sequences alone can be problematic, and sampling needs to be increased.  Getting in a hurry to change names can result in unnecessary instability (as in this case).                       ------------------Ken  

From: weakley at bio.unc.edu
To: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Grass taxonomy (paraphylophobia strikes again??)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:35:30 +0000







Avoiding name changes and instability would be great, but which of both  holophyletically acceptable solutions is "right"?  What are the criteria?  Who should defer?   And a deference to traditional circumscriptions
 is both unscientific and widely unacceptable to many, as in this case.  Both the splitty and lumpy solutions in this (and many parallel) circumstances are widely distasteful and leading one way or the other to instability.



Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless




-----Original message-----


From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>

To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Sent: 2012 Aug, Thu, 9 01:40:41 GMT+00:00

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Grass taxonomy (paraphylophobia strikes again??)










Hi Curtis and Mary,        I don't know all the details of this debate, but I get the distinct feeling that this debate is largely fueled by a desire to avoid a paraphyletic genus Festuca.  In this case, one seems to get some advocating lumping to get a larger
 holophyletic Festuca, while others advocate splitting to get a smaller holophyletic Festuca.  If this is indeed the problem in this particular case, is it worth all the instability and conflicting name changes?                                      --------------Ken

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       



> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:36:26 -0700

> From: lists at curtisclark.org

> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Grass taxonomy

> 

> On 8/7/2012 9:42 AM, Mary Barkworth wrote:

> > b) In 2005, several people strongly objected to expanding Lolium to include grasses with a panicle. The answer adopted by many was to recognize Schedonorus. It was the compromise that I went along with ni the Flora of North America.

> 

> Another approach was taken by the new Jepson manual for California: a 

> large, inclusive, monophyletic Festuca, which includes Lolium, Vulpia, 

> and perhaps other segregates

> 

> -- 

> Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark

> After 2012-01-02:

> Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140

> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768

> 

>                                      

_______________________________________________



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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org



(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here