Nick,
In this case we are talking specifically about what was done with the Laliinae, and we know that it is polyphyletic, therefore if we lump them together we are not maintaining a monophyletic group. Just because it is large is not the problem.
icones
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: [OGD] re: scientists doing taxonomy (was re;Sophronitis formerly Laelia)
Icones wroteYour approach would break the taxonomic rule that a genus should be monophyletic, at > least as we understand it at the time. Just lumping things together is not the
answer.
I must be missing something, because I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Preferring a larger genus doesn't necessarily mean rejecting the idea that a genus must be monophyletic. Has anyone argued that the broadly defined Sophronitis of van den Berg et al. is not monophyletic? Chiron and Castor Neto don't seem to have argued that. They just broke the up large assemblage into several smaller genera.
I would expect that smaller genera would create more problems regarding monophyly. If the relationship between Sophronitis cernua and Sophronitis coccinea is reassessed as a result of the new plastid DNA sequence, then the large genus Sophronitis (van den Berg) would remain monophyletic, but the smaller genus Hadrolaelia (Chiron and Castro Neto) would become polyphyletic.
regards, Nick
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
