What is the writer of a flora to do? Evolutionary taxonomy or phylogenetic systematics?

SIDA, Contributions to Botany

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 647-674

  Diggs Jr , George M ^a   Lipscomb, Barney L ^a  

^a BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

EID: 0037164515     PISSN: 00361488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Anonymous. 1994. Systematics agenda 2000: Charting the biosphere. Technical Report. Systematics Agenda 2000, New York.
2. Applequist, W.L. and R.S. Wallace. 2001. Phylogeny of the Portulacaceous cohort based on ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 26:406-419.
3. Baldwin, B.G., D.W. Kyhos, J. Dvorak, and G.D. Carr. 1991. Chloroplast DNA evidence for a North American origin of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Asteraceae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 88:1840-1843.
4. Barkley, T.M. 2000. Floristic studies in contemporary botany. Madroño 47:253-258.
5. Barkley, T.M. (Theodore). 2002. Personal communication. Student of Asteraceae in charge of organizing the three volume treatment of that family for Flora of North America. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth.
6. Barkworth, M.E. 2000. Changing Perceptions of the Triticeae. In: W.L. Jacobs and J. Everett (eds.). Grasses: Systematics and Evolution. Pp. 110-120. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
7. Benton, M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: Is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. 75:633-648.
8. Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
9. Berry, P.E. 2002. Biological inventories and the PhyloCode. Taxon 51:27-29.
10. Bogler, D.J. and B.B. Simpson. 1995. A chloroplast DNA study of the Agavaceae. Syst. Bot. 20:191-205.
11. Bogler, D.J. and B.B. Simpson. 1996. Phylogeny of Agavaceae based on ITS rDNA sequence variation. Amer. J. Bot. 83:1225-1235.
12. Brummitt, R.K. 1997. Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46:723-734.
13. Brummitt, R.K. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51:31-41.
14. Caddick, L.R., P.J. Rudall, P. Wilkin, and M.W. Chase. 2000. Yams and their allies: Systematics of Dioscoreales. In: K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison, eds. Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. Pp. 475-487. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
15. Caddick, L.R., P. Wilkin, P.J. Rudall, A.J. Hedderson, and M.W. Chase. 2002. Yams reclassified: A recircumscription of Dioscoreaceae and Dioscoreales. Taxon 51:103-114.
16. Cantino, P.D. 1998. Bionomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47:425-429.
17. Cantino, P.D. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: Addressing some concerns. Taxon 49:85-93.
18. Cantino, P.D. and de Queiroz, K. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/.
19. Chase, M.W., M.R. Duvall, HG. Hills, J.G. Conran, A.V. Cox, L.E. Eguiarte, J. Hartwell, M.F. Fay, L.R. Caddick, K.M. Cameron, and S. Hoot. 1995a. Molecular phylogenetics of Lilianae. In: P.J. Rudall. P.J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler, and C.J. Humphries, eds. Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 1:109-137. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
20. Chase, M.W., D.W. Stevenson, P. Wilkin, and P.J. Rudall. 1995b. Monocot systematics: A combined analysis. In: P.J. Rudall. P.J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler, and C.J. Humphries, eds. Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 2:685-730. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
21. Chase, M.W., D.E. Soltis, P.S. Soltis, P.J. Rudall, M.F. Fay, W.H. Han, S. Sullivan, J. Joseph, M. Molvray, P.J. Kores, T.J. Givnish, K.J. Sytsma, and J.C. Pires. 2000. Higher-level systematics of the mononotyledons: An assessment of current knowledge and a new classification. In: K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison, eds. Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. Pp 3-16. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
22. Colless, D.H. 1977. A cornucopia of categories. Syst. Zool. 26:349-352.
23. Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner.
24. Cronquist, A. 1987. A botanical critique of cladism. Bot. Rev. 53:1-52.
25. Cronquist, A. 1988. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, 2nd Ed. New York Bot. Garden, Bronx.
26. Dahlgren, R.M.T., H.T. Clifford, and P.F. Yeo. 1985. The Families of the Monocotyledons. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
27. de Queiroz, K. 2000. The definitions of taxon names: A reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49:533-536.
28. de Queiroz, K. and P.D. Cantino. 2001. Taxon names, not taxa, are defined. Taxon 50:821-826.
29. de Queiroz, K.D. and J. Gauthier. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480.
30. Diggs, G.M. Jr., B. L. Lipscomb, and R.J. O'Kennon. 1999. Shinners & Mahler's illustrated flora of North Central Texas. Sida, Bot. Misc. 16.
31. Diggs, G.M. Jr., B. L. Lipscomb, R.J. O'Kennon, and M.D. Reed. In preparation. Illustrated flora of East Texas. To be published in Sida, Bot. Misc., Volume 1 (Ferns and similar plants, gymnosperms, and monocots) projected to be published in 2003; Volume 2 (Dicots) projected to be published in 2008.
32. Downie, S.R., G.M. Plunkett, M.F. Watson, K. Spalik, D. S. Katz-Downie, C.M.Valiejo-Roman, E.I. Terentieva, A.V. Troitsky, B.Y. Lee, J. Lahham, and A. El-Oqlah. 2001. Tribes and clades within Apiaceae subfamily Apioideae: The contribution of molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 301-330.
33. Duvall, M. R. et al. (multiple authors). 1993b. Phylogenetic hypotheses for the monocotyledons constructed from rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80:607-619.
34. Eguiarte, L., M.R. Duvall, G.H. Hearn, and M.T. Clegg. 1994. The systematic status of the Agavaceae and Nolinaceae and related Asparagales in the monocotyledons: An analysis based on the rbcL gene sequence. Bol. Soc. Bot. Méx. 54:35-56.
35. Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. BioScience 52:31-43.
36. Fay, M.F., P.J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K.L. Stobart, A.Y. deBruijin, G. Reeves, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W.-P. Hong, J. Joseph, W.J. Hahn, J.G. Conran, and M.W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA regions. In: K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison, eds. Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. Pp. 350-371. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
37. Forey, P.L. 2001. The PhyloCode: Description and comentary. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58:81-96.
38. Forey, P.L. 2002. PhyloCode - Pain, no gain. Taxon 51:43-54.
39. French, J.C., M.G. Chung, and Y.K. Hur. 1995. Chloroplast DNA Phylogeny of the Ariflorae. In: P.J. Rudall. P.J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler, and C.J. Humphries, eds. Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 1:255-275. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
40. Freudenstein, J.V. 1998. Paraphyly, ancestors, and classification - A response to Sosef and Brummitt. Taxon 47:95-104.
41. Grant, V. 2001a. Test of the accuracy of cladograms in Gilia (Polemoniaceae) and some other angiosperm groups. Plant Syst. Evol. 230:89-96.
42. Grant, V. 2001b. A guide to understanding recent classifications of the family Polemoniaceae. Lundellia 4:12-24.
43. Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F.R. Barrie, H.M. Burdet, V. Demoulin,T.S. Filgueiras, D.H. Nicolson, P.C. Silva, J.E. Skog, P. Trehane, N.J. Turland, and D.L. Hawksworth, eds. 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature. Regnum Veg. 138.
44. Haynes, R.R. (Robert). 1998. Personal communication. Specialist in Alismataceae and Potamogetonaceae and Flora of Alabama; Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
45. Haynes, R.R. 2000. Najadaceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. Fl. North Amer. 22:77-83. Oxford Univ. Press, New York and Oxford.
46. Haynes, R.R., LB. Holm-Nielsen, and D.H. Les. 1998. Najadaceae. In: K. Kubitzki, ed. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol. IV. Flowering Plants. Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (Except Gramineae). Pp.301-306. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
47. Hickman, J.C., ed. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
48. Hershkovitz, M.A. and E.A. Zimmer. 1997. On the evolutionary origin of the cacti. Taxon 46: 217-232.
49. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
50. nd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
51. Jørgensen, P.M. 2000. Names are defined, but not as taxa. Taxon 49:779.
52. Judd, W.S., R.W. Sanders, and M.J. Donoghue. 1994. Angiosperm family pairs: Preliminary phylogenetic analyses. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5:1-51.
53. Judd, W.S., C.S. Campbell, E.A. Kellogg, and P.F. Stevens. 1999. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
54. nd Ed. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
55. st century. Taxon 51:5-6.
56. Kubitzki K., P.J. Rudall, and M.C. Chase. 1998. Systematics and evolution. In: K. Kubitzki, ed. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol. III. Flowering Plants. Monocotyledons: Lilianae (Except Orchidaceae). Pp. 23-33. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
57. Kvacek, Z. 1995. Limnobiophyllum Krassilov - A fossil link between the Araceae and the Lemnaceae. Aquatic Bot. 50:49-61.
58. Langer, M.C. 2001. Linnaeus and the PhyloCode: Where are the differences? Taxon 50: 1091-1096.
59. Lawrence, G.H.M. 1951. Taxonomy of Vascular Plants. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York.
60. Lee, M.S. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50:175-180.
61. Les, D.H. and R.R. Haynes. 1995. Systematics of subclass Alismatidae: A synthesis of approaches. In: P.J. Rudall, P.J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler, and C.J. Humphries, eds. Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 2:353-377. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
62. Les, D.H., D.J. Crawford, E. Landolt, J.D. Gabel, and R.T. Kimball. 2002. Phylogeny and systematics of Lemnaceae, the duckweed family. Syst. Bot. 27:221-240.
63. Les, D.H., D.K. Garvin, and C.F. Wimpee. 1993. Phylogenetic studies in the monocot subclass Alismatidae: Evidence for a reappraisal of the aquatic order Najadales. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:304-314.
64. Lidén, M., B. Oxelman, A. Backlund, L. Andersson, B. Bremer, R. Eriksson, R. Moberg, I. Nordal, K. Persson, M.Thulin, and B. Zimmer. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46:735-738.
65. Mason-Gamer, R.J. and E.A. Kellogg. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of the Triticeae using the starch synthase gene, and a preliminary analysis of some North American Elymus species. In: W.L. Jacobs and J. Everett (eds.). Grasses: Systematics and Evolution. Pp. 102-109. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
66. Mayo, S.J., J. Bogner, and P.C. Boyce. 1995.The Arales. In: P.J. Rudall. P.J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler, and C.J. Humphries, eds. Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 1:277-286. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
67. Mayo, S.J., J. Bogner, and P.C. Boyce. 1997. The Genera of Araceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, U.K.
68. Mayo, S.J., J. Bogner, and P.C. Boyce. 1998. Araceae. In: K. Kubitzki. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol. IV. Flowering Plants. Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (Except Gramineae). Pp. 26-74. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
69. Mayr, E. 1995. Systems of ordering data. Biol. & Phil. 10:419-434.
70. McNeill, J. 2000. Naming the groups: Developing a stable and efficient nomenclature. Taxon 49:705-720.
71. Meacham, C.A. and T. Duncan. 1987. The necessity of convex groups in biological classification. Syst. Bot. 12:78-80.
72. Mishler, B.D. 1999. Getting rid of species? In: R.A. Wilson, ed. Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Pp. 307-315. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
73. Mishler, B.D. 2000. Deep phylogenetic relationships among "plants" and their implications for classification. Taxon 49:661-683.
74. Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47:561-579.
75. Neyland, R. 2002. A phylogeny inferred from the large-subunit (265) ribosome DNA sequences suggests that Burmanniales are polyphyletic. Australian Syst. Bot. 15:119-128.
76. Nicolson, D.H. 2002. Stone, plant, or animal. Taxon 51:7-10.
77. Nixon, K.C. and M.J. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "phylogenetic systematics." Cladistics 16:298-318.
78. Pennisi, E. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science 291:2304-2307.
79. PhyloCode. 2002. PhyloCode. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/ Accessed June 2002.
80. Plunkett, G.M., D.E. Soltis, and P.S. Soltis. 1996 [1997]. Clarification of the relationship between Apiaceae and Araliaceae based on matK and rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 84:565-580.
81. nd Ed. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA.
82. Radford, A.E., W.C. Dickison, J.R. Massey, and C.R. Bell. 1974. Vascular Plant Systematics. Harper and Row Publishers, NY.
83. Rieseberg, L.H. and L. Brouillet. 1994. Are many plant species paraphyletic? Taxon 43:21-32.
84. Rieseberg, L.H. and J.M Burke. 2001. The biological reality of species: Gene flow, selection, and collective evolution. Taxon 50:47-67.
85. Rhodes, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
86. Rudall, P.J., J.G. Conran, and M.W. Chase. 2000a. Systematics of Ruscaceae/Convallariaceae: A combined morphological and molecular investigation. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134:73-92.
87. Rudall, P.J., K.L. Stobart, W.-P. Hong, J.G. Conran, C.A. Furness, G.C. Kite, and M.W. Chase. 2000b. Consider the lilies: Systematics of Lilailes. In: K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison, eds. Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. Pp. 347-359. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
88. Rydin, C., M. Källersjö, and E.M. Friis. 2002. Seed plant relationships and the systematic position of Gnetales based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA: Conflicting data, rooting problems, and the monophyly of conifers. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163:197-214.
89. Sanders, R.W. and W.S. Judd. 2000. Incorporating phylogenetic results into floristic treatments. Sida, Bot. Misc. 18:97-112.
90. Schander, C. 1998. Types, emendations and names - A reply to Lindén et al. Taxon 47: 401-410.
91. Shaffer-Fehre, M. 1991. The position of Najas within the subclass Alismatidae (Monocotyledones) in the light of new evidence from seed coat structures in the Hydrocharitoideae (Hydrocharitales). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 107:189-209.
92. Smith, J.E. 1824. The English Flora, vol. 1. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, London, England, U.K.
93. Sosef, M.S.M. 1997. Hierarchical models, reticulate evolution and the inevitability of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 46:75-85.
94. Stevens, P.F. 1998. What kind of classification should the practicing taxonomist use to be saved? In: J. Dransfield, M.J.E. Coode, and D.A. Simpson, eds. Plant Diversity in Malesia III: Proceedings of the Third International Flora Malesiana Symposium 1995. Pp. 295-319. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
95. Stevens, P.F. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950-2000: Change, progress, or both? Taxon 49:533-537.
96. Stevens, P.F. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51:11-26.
97. Stockey, R.A., G.L. Hoffman, and G.W. Rothwell. 1997. The fossil monocot Limnobiophyllum scutatum: Resolving the phylogeny of Lemnaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 84:355-368.
98. Stuessy, T.F. 1997. Classification: More than just branching patterns of evolution. Aliso 15:113-124.
99. Stuessy, T.F. 2000. Taxon names are not defined. Taxon 49:231-233.
100. Stuessy, T.F. 2001. Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50:185-1896.
101. Thorne, R.F. 1993. Hydrocharitaceae. In: J.C. Hickman, ed. The Jepson manual: Higher Plants of California. Pp. 1150-1151. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
102. Tree of Life. 2002. Tree of Life Web Project. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html Accessed Sept. 2002.
103. Verhoek, S. and W.J. Hess. 2002. Agavaceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. Fl. North Amer. 26. In press. Oxford Univ. Press, New York and Oxford.
104. Wagner, W.H., Jr. 1954. Reticulate evolution in the Appalachian Aspleniums. Evolution 8:103-118.
105. Webster, G.L. 2002. The accomplishments, dialectics, and prospects of contemporary plant systematics. A review of 19 articles published as: Plant Systematics: A half-century of progress (1950-2000), published in Taxon in 2000 and 2001. In: R. Schmid, ed. Reviews and notices of publications. Taxon 51:600-604.
106. Welzen, P.C. van. 1998. Phylogenetic versus Linnaean taxonomy, the continuing story. Taxon 47:413-423.
107. Wheeler, Q.D. 2001. Clever Caroli: Lessons from Linnaeus. http://persoon.si.edu/sbs2001/comments. Accessed from Google cache June 2002.
108. Wilkinson, M. and J.L. Thorley. 2001. No compromise on consensus. Taxon 50:181-184.
109. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it "so long Linnaeus"? Bioscience 50:646-651.
110. Woodger, J.H. 1952. From biology to mathematics. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 3:1-21.
111. Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2000. Flora of Florida. Vol. 1 (Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms). Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville.
112. Yamashita, J. and M.N. Tamura. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the Convallariaceae (Asparagales). In: K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison, eds. Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. Pp.387-400. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
113. Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark's flora of Missouri. Vol. 1 (Pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and monocots). Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, in cooperation with the Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.
114. Zander, R.H. 1998. Phylogenetic reconstruction, a critique. Taxon 47:693.
115. Zander, R.H. 1999. Deconstructing Reconstruction: Main Points and Additional Comments. Bryology Seminar Missouri Botanical Garden.http://www.buffalomuseumofscience.org/BOTANYDECON/mohand.htm. Accessed 10 July 2002.
116. Zomlefer, W.B. 1994. Guide to Flowering Plant Families. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.