Money, morphology and molecules: Some comments on Wortley, Bennett and Scotland (2002), Taxonomy and phylogeny reconstruction: Two distinct research agendas in systematics

Edinburgh Journal of Botany

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 451-457

  Stevens, P F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

^b MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN   (United States)

Author keywords

Funding; Inventory; Molecules; Morphology; Phylogeny; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 14144252882     PISSN: 09604286     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0960428602000288     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP (1998). An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531-555.
2. ANON. (1994). Systematics Agenda 2000: Charting the Biosphere. New York: American Museum of Natural History.
3. BALDWIN, B. (2000). Roles for modern plant systematics in discovery and conservation of fine-scale biodiversity. Madroño 47: 219-229.
4. BREMER, B., JANSEN, R. K., OXELMAN, B. et al. (1999). More characters or more taxa for a robust phylogeny - case study from the coffee family (Rubiaceae). Syst. Biol. 48: 413-435.
5. CARLQUIST, S. (1969). Towards acceptable evolutionary interpretations of floral anatomy. Phytomorphology 19: 332-362.
6. CHAN, R., BALDWIN, B. G. & ORNDUFF, R. (2002). Cryptic goldfields: a molecular phylogenetic reinvestigation of Lasthenia californica sensu lato and close relatives (Compositae: Heliantheae sensu lato). Am. J. Bot. 89: 1103-1112.
7. CRONQUIST, A. (1981). An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. DAVIS, P. H. (1978). The moving staircase: a discussion on taxonomic rank and affinity. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 36: 325-340.
9. DONOGHUE, M. J. (2001). A wish list for systematic biology. Syst. Biol. 50: 755-757.
10. FLOYD, S. K. & FRIEDMAN, W. E. (2000). Evolution of endosperm developmental patterns among basal flowering plants. Int. J. Plant Sci. 161(6, suppl): S57-S81.
11. GIFT, N. & STEVENS, P. F. (1997). Vagaries in the delimitation of character states in quantitative variation - an experimental study. Syst. Biol. 46: 112-125.
12. GOODSTEIN, D. L. (1998). Far from the finish. Science 282: 886.
13. HAWKSWORTH, D. H. (1994). Constraints to pest characterisation caused by biological nomenclature. In: HAWKSWORTH, D. H. (ed.) The Identification and Characterisation of Pest Organisms, pp. 93-105. Wallingford: CAB International.
14. HERENDEEN, P. & MILLER, R. B. (2000). Utility of wood anatomical characters in cladistic studies. IAWA Journal 21: 247-276.
15. HUDSON, L. (1995). Charmed sceptic. Times Lit. Suppl. 4821 (August 25): 10.
16. KÄLLERSJÖ, M., FARRIS, J. S., CHASE, M. W. et al. (1998). Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213: 259-287.
17. KIRSCHNER, R. P. (1994). Violent events in M51. Nature 371: 199-200.
18. KRUCKEBERG, A. R. (1997). Essay: Whither plant taxonomy in the 21st century? Syst. Bot. 22: 181-186.
19. LAMMERS, T. G. (1999). Plant systematics today: all our eggs in one basket? Syst. Bot. 24: 494-496.
20. MAYR, E. & ASHLOCK, P. D. (1991). Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. MCDADE, L. A. (1995). Species concepts and problems in practice: insight from botanical monographs. Syst. Bot. 20: 606-622.
22. MCGOWEn, M. H., WILTSHIRE, R. J. E., POTTS, B. M. et al. (2001). The origins of Eucalyptus vernicosa, a unique shrub eucalypt. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 74: 397-405.
23. MISCHLER, B. D. (1999). Getting rid of species? In: WILSON, R. A. (ed.) Getting Rid of Species, pp. 307-315. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
24. PETERSON, A. T. & NAVARRO-SIGÜENZA, A. G. (1999). Alternate species concepts as bases for determining priority conservation areas. Conserv. Biol. 13: 427-431.
25. STEVENS, P. F. (1996). On phylogenies and databases - where are the data, or are there any? Taxon 45: 95-98.
26. STEVENS, P. F. (2000a). Botanical systematics 1950-2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635-659.
27. STEVENS, P. F. (2000b). On characters and character states: do overlapping and non-overlapping variation, morphology and molecules all yield data of the same value? In: SCOTLAND, R. & PENNINGTON, R. T. (eds) Homology and Systematics, pp. 81-105. London: Taylor & Francis.
28. STEVENS, P. F. (2001-). Angiosperm phylogeny website. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/welcome.html
29. THORNE, R. F. (2000). The classification and geography of the flowering plants: dicotyledons of the class Angiospermae. Bot. Rev. (London) 66: 441-647.
30. WIENS, J. J. (2001). Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: problems and solutions. Syst. Biol. 50: 689-699.
31. WIENS, J. J. & SERVEDIO, M. R. (2000). Species delimitation in systematics: inferring diagnostic differences between species. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 267: 631-636.