Appendices & Glossary - Botanical Research Institute of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1180 APPENDIX SIX/FLORAS: EVOLUTIONARY TAXONOMY OR PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS? be noted that there is significant variation in the extent to which various “phylogenetic” systematists follow all of the implications of the cladistic approach—most, for example, still use binomial nomenclature even though they may disagree with it on theoretical grounds. At the same time, the system of nomenclature (binomial, etc.) and hierarchical classification that has developed over the past 250 years has served and continues to serve the botanical and broader communities well. There are thus positive aspects to both of these approaches. Because of major differences in philosophy and methodology, the classification systems produced by proponents of evolutionary taxonomy and cladistics are often quite different. It is not unexpected then that the two conflicting viewpoints have produced a vigorous and heated debate (e.g., Nixon & Carpenter 2000), which has even been referred to as a “maelstrom” (Benton 2000). The proposed approach of phylogenetic classification has certainly not “mostly been politely accepted by the systematic community” as stated by Schander (1998). In fact, the tone of a few of the articles and discussions (on both sides of the argument) has been surprisingly impolite by the standards of modern scientific discourse, with Webster (2002) referring to the arguments as “an ideological cacophony of bombast and invective.” There is voluminous literature on the subject, including numerous recent articles about the different taxonomic and nomenclatural approaches (e.g., Moore 1998; Stevens 1998; Diggs et al. 1999 (Appendix 6); Mishler 1999; Benton 2000; Cantino 2000; de Queiroz 2000; McNeill 2000; Nixon & Carpenter 2000; Sanders & Judd 2000; Stevens 2000; Stuessy 2000, 2001; Withgott 2000; de Queiroz & Cantino 2001; Grant 2001a, 2001b; Langer 2001; Lee 2001; Pennisi 2001; Berry 2002; Brummitt 2002; Forey 2002; Kress & DePriest 2002; Nicolson 2002; Stevens 2002; Webster 2002). Symposia and workshops have also been held (XVI International Botanical Congress—August 1999; Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History—March 2001; Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation—June 2002), and a new system of nomenclature has been proposed (PhyloCode 2002). However, few authors or discussions have specifically addressed the special problems faced by writers of floras (but see Stevens 1998, Sanders & Judd 2000, and Berry 2002). This controversy is actually multifaceted, with many quite different aspects (e.g., are taxon names defined?—Stuessy 2000, 2001, de Queiroz 2000, de Queiroz & Cantino 2001; which system will ultimately be more stable?—Forey 2002) that are beyond the scope of the discussion here. In this paper we are focusing on the implications for floristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR FLORISTICS As writers of a flora (the Illustrated Flora of East Texas project—Diggs et al.; www.easttexasflora.org), we and our co-authors are faced with the question of what type of classification and nomenclatural concepts should be followed in a large regional flora (ca. 3,300 species or roughly 1/6 the species in North America north of Mexico). We are acutely interested in this question, because as floristicians we must translate and synthesize a variety of types of botanical research, both practical and theoretical, into a form usable by a very diverse audience—one that ranges from professional taxonomists and other scientists to lay botanists, students, and interested amateurs, many of whom are unacquainted with taxonomic methods. In fact, we believe that addressing the needs of diverse users is one of the most important tasks of floristicians. Further, developing a “general-purpose system” that effectively addresses the needs of multiple users is often considered to be the “historical and continuing function” of taxonomy as a whole (Cronquist 1987). The answer to the question of what type of concepts should be followed varies greatly depending on whom one asks. The most conservative voices would say that the traditional system of nomenclature, a ranked hierarchical system of classification, traditional families, etc., should be used due to both theoretical and practical considerations. Some would even argue that clearly polyphyletic traditional families (e.g., Liliaceae in the broad sense) should continue to be used in floras since this is a very useful and practical approach. The most extreme voices on the other side (i.e. extreme cladists) would say that no set categories should be recognized (e.g., no families, no genera; instead, only supportable clades), only monophyletic groups (= a common ancestor and all its descendants; Fig. 176) should be given taxonomic recognition (i.e., no paraphyletic groups should be allowed—currently many genera and families are paraphyletic; paraphyletic groups are defined as those containing a common ancestor and some, but not all, of its descendants). Further, the extreme
FLORAS: EVOLUTIONARY TAXONOMY OR PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS?/APPENDIX SIX 1181 FIG. 176/DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF POLYPHYLETIC, MONOPHYLETIC, AND PARAPHYLETIC GROUPS. FIGURE PRODUCED BY BRIT/AUSTIN COLLEGE; RE- PRODUCTION OF THIS IMAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE COPYRIGHT PERMISSION.
Page 1 and 2: REF. CODE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES APPE
Page 3 and 4: ILLUSTRATION SOURCES/APPENDIX ONE 1
Page 5 and 6: ILLUSTRATION SOURCES/APPENDIX ONE 1
Page 7 and 8: SUBCLASS COMMELINIDAE Flowers small
Page 9 and 10: ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTS CONTINUED) Orde
Page 11 and 12: PHYLOGENY/CLASSIFICATION OF FLOWERI
Page 13 and 14: PHYLOGENY/CLASSIFICATION-APG/APPEND
Page 15 and 16: (continuation of Aveneae) Phalaris
Page 17 and 18: TAXONOMY, CLASSIFICATION, AND THE D
Page 27: FLORAS: EVOLUTIONARY TAXONOMY OR PH
Page 31 and 32: FLORAS: EVOLUTIONARY TAXONOMY OR PH
Page 41 and 42: APPENDIX SEVEN CHANGES IN THE SCIEN
Page 43 and 44: COLLECTING HERBARIUM SPECIMENS/APPE
Page 45 and 46: COLLECTING HERBARIUM SPECIMENS/APPE
Page 47 and 48: Austin College Herbarium, Sherman,
Page 49 and 50: University of Texas at Austin Herba
Page 51 and 52: EAST TEXAS AS A UNIQUE HABITAT 1 Ge
Page 53 and 54: EAST TEXAS AS A UNIQUE HABITAT/APPE
Page 55 and 56: EAST TEXAS AS A UNIQUE HABITAT/APPE
Page 57 and 58: LIST OF TEXAS ENDEMICS OCCURRING IN
Page 59 and 60: Ditaxis simulans (J.W. Ingram) Radc
Page 61 and 62: APPENDIX TWELVE SPECIES OF PTERIDOP
Page 63 and 64: SPECIES OF PETERIDOPHYTES, GYMNOSPE
Page 65 and 66: SPECIES OF PETERIDOPHYTES, GYMNOSPE
Page 67 and 68: LIST OF CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS/
Page 69 and 70: LIST OF CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS/
Page 71 and 72: APRIVATE LIST OF CONSERVATION ORGAN
Page 73 and 74: APPENDIX FOURTEEN BOOKS FOR THE STU
Page 75 and 76: BOOKS FOR THE STUDY OF TEXAS NATIVE
Page 77 and 78: BOOKS FOR THE STUDY OF TEXAS NATIVE
Page 79 and 80:
APPENDIX FIFTEEN A SUGGESTED LIST O
Page 81 and 82:
TREES (CONTINUED) NATIVE PLANTS SUG
Page 83 and 84:
TREES (CONTINUED) NATIVE PLANTS SUG
Page 85 and 86:
SHRUBS (CONTINUED) NATIVE PLANTS SU
Page 87 and 88:
WILDFLOWERS (CONTINUED) NATIVE PLAN
Page 89:
WILDFLOWERS (CONTINUED) NATIVE PLAN
Page 92 and 93:
1244 APPENDIX SIXTEEN/NON-NATIVE PL
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
APPENDIX SEVENTEEN A SUGGESTED LIST
Page 114 and 115:
1266 APPENDIX SEVENTEEN/NATIVE PLAN
Page 116 and 117:
1268 APPENDIX SEVENTEEN/NATIVE PLAN
Page 118 and 119:
APPENDIX EIGHTEEN LIST OF SOURCES F
Page 120 and 121:
1272 APPENDIX EIGHTEEN/SOURCES FOR
Page 122 and 123:
1274 APPENDIX NINETEEN/NATIVE PLANT
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
1290 APPENDIX TWENTY/LEPIDOPTERAN H
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
APPENDIX TWENTY-ONE COMMERCIALLY IM
Page 152 and 153:
1304 APPENDIX TWENTY-ONE/COMMERCIAL
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
APPENDIX TWENTY-TWO LIST OF SELECTE
Page 192 and 193:
1344 APPENDIX TWENTY-TWO/INTERNET A
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX TWENTY-THREE STATE BOTANIC
Page 202 and 203:
APPENDIX TWENTY-FOUR ELRAY S. NIXON
Page 204 and 205:
1356 APPENDIX TWENTY-FOUR/ELRAY S.
Page 206 and 207:
1358 APPENDIX TWENTY-FIVE/LYNN R. L
Page 208 and 209:
1360 GLOSSARY/AMENT-ARIL AMENT (= C
Page 210 and 211:
1362 GLOSSARY/ARILLATE-BISECTED ARI
Page 212 and 213:
1364 GLOSSARY/BISERIATE-CAPITULUM B
Page 214 and 215:
1366 GLOSSARY/CAPSULAR-COARCTATE CA
Page 216 and 217:
1368 GLOSSARY/COB-CORONA COB Rachis
Page 218 and 219:
1370 GLOSSARY/CORONIFORM SCALES-DEC
Page 220 and 221:
1372 GLOSSARY/DEFLEXED-DOCTRINE OF
Page 222 and 223:
1374 GLOSSARY/EROSE-FISSURED egrota
Page 224 and 225:
A 1376 GLOSSARY/GLOCHID-HETEROCARPO
Page 226 and 227:
1378 GLOSSARY/INDETERMINATE-LACTIFE
Page 228 and 229:
A 1380 GLOSSARY/M-MULTIFLOROUS M M
Page 230 and 231:
1382 GLOSSARY/OLIGO-PEDUNCULAR prim
Page 232 and 233:
1384 GLOSSARY/PINNIPALMATE-PSEUDOAN
Page 234 and 235:
1386 GLOSSARY/RESUPINATE-SCAPOSE RE
Page 236 and 237:
1388 GLOSSARY/SILIQUE-STAMINATE of
Page 238 and 239:
1390 GLOSSARY/SUPINE-THYRSE at or u
Page 240 and 241:
A 1392 GLOSSARY/UNIFOLIATE-WORT UNI
Page 242 and 243:
AAGESEN, L. and A.M. SANSO. 2003. T
Page 244 and 245:
ALLRED, K.W. (ined.). Anthoxanthum,
Page 246 and 247:
hexagona: Pattern of ribosomal DNA
Page 248 and 249:
on integrating traditional nomencla
Page 250 and 251:
BEHLER, J.L. and F.W. KING. 1979. T
Page 252 and 253:
Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Pp
Page 254 and 255:
BRINKER, R.R. 1942. Monograph of Sc
Page 256 and 257:
North American sediments. Pp. 39-70
Page 258 and 259:
CAMPBELL, C.S. 1985. The subfamilie
Page 260 and 261:
of the Bothriochloa ischaemum compl
Page 262 and 263:
CLAUSEN, R.T. 1946. Selaginella sub
Page 264 and 265:
CORRELL, D.S. 1949. A preliminary s
Page 266 and 267:
Angiosperms: Monocotyledons, Univ.
Page 268 and 269:
paleovegetation, and paleofloras du
Page 270 and 271:
DOLEZEL, R. 1975. Soil survey of Pa
Page 272 and 273:
ELLIOTT, J. 1992. Leucojum: The sno
Page 274 and 275:
FERNALD, M.L. 1922. Notes on Sparga
Page 276 and 277:
FRECKMANN, R.W. and M.G. LELONG. 20
Page 278 and 279:
GENSEL, P.G. 1977. Morphologic and
Page 280 and 281:
GÓMEZ-MARTÍNEZ, R. and A. CULHAM.
Page 282 and 283:
Amer. 26:510-511. Oxford Univ. Pres
Page 284 and 285:
HARMS, L.J. 1968. Cytotaxonomic stu
Page 286 and 287:
HAYNES, R.R., D.H. LES, and L.B. HO
Page 288 and 289:
HINE, D.N. 1996. Vegetation of Cadd
Page 290 and 291:
HUBER, K. 2002. Stranglehold: Giant
Page 292 and 293:
JOHNSON, D.M. 1993b. Onoclea. In: F
Page 294 and 295:
Pollen size as related to chromosom
Page 296 and 297:
KINGSBURY, J.M. 1965. Deadly harves
Page 298 and 299:
COLLINS, O. DIX, S.P. DUTTON, G.E.
Page 300 and 301:
LEE, D. and D.E. FAIRBROTHERS. 1969
Page 302 and 303:
LLOYD, R.M. 1993. Parkeriaceae. In:
Page 304 and 305:
MACROBERTS, B.R. and M.H. MACROBERT
Page 306 and 307:
MARKS, P.L., and P.A. HARCOMBE. 198
Page 308 and 309:
MCKEEVER, S. 2001. Some native orch
Page 310 and 311:
MICKEL, J.T. and J.M. BEITEL. 1988.
Page 312 and 313:
MUASYA, A.M., D.A. SIMPSON, M.W. CH
Page 314 and 315:
linator behaviour on pollination of
Page 316 and 317:
molbio.nmsu.edu:81/hort100/physical
Page 318 and 319:
gist and expert on the ferns of Ark
Page 320 and 321:
PIRES, J.C. 2002. Triteleia. In: Fl
Page 322 and 323:
P.S. S OLTIS, M. ZANIS, E.A. ZIMMER
Page 324 and 325:
RETTIG, J.H., H.D. WILSON, and J.R.
Page 326 and 327:
ROSEN, D.J. 2004. Noteworthy collec
Page 328 and 329:
etween Alstroemeria and Bomarea (Al
Page 330 and 331:
the Hydrocharitoideae (Hydrocharita
Page 332 and 333:
SINGHURST, J.R., W.F. CARR, W.J. LE
Page 334 and 335:
SMITH, S.G. 2002b. Schoenoplectus.
Page 336 and 337:
SPEER, W.D. and K.W. HILU. 1998a [1
Page 338 and 339:
STERN, F.C. 1956. Snowdrops and sno
Page 340 and 341:
SVENSON, H.K. 1953. The Eleocharis
Page 342 and 343:
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE. 1997. Fed
Page 344 and 345:
TOMLINSON, P.B. 1961. The anatomy o
Page 346 and 347:
UHL, N.W. and J. DRANSFIELD. 1999.
Page 348 and 349:
VERHOEK, S. 1978b. Huaco and amole:
Page 350 and 351:
WATSON, L.E., G.E. UNO, N.A. MCCART
Page 352 and 353:
distinctus including remarks on the
Page 354 and 355:
WOLF, N.M. 1776. Genera plantarum.
Page 356 and 357:
ZIMDAHL, R.L. 1989. Weeds and words
Page 358 and 359:
SUMMARY DATA ON THE FLORA AND COMPA
Page 360:
Wilbarger WICHITA FALLS Baylor Arch
show all

Appendices & Glossary - Botanical Research Institute of Texas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?