Taxonomic Changes--P.2
Mary Sue Ittner (Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:32:55 PDT)
Dear All, but especially Mark McDonough who is bewailing the Chlorogalum
proposed change,
In "Consider the Lilies" by Dean G. Kelch in the April 2002 issue of
Fremontia, A Journal of the California Native Plant Society the California
genera to be placed in the new Agavaceae are:
Agave, Camassia, Chlorogalum, Hastingsia, Hesperocallis, Hesperoyucca, and
Yucca. This is a bit mind boggling as we have desert-adapted plants and
woodland plants sometimes growing in wet places thrown together. Kelch
writes that desert-adapted plants like agaves could have evolved from a
woodland herb like Hosta via some intermediate plant resembling
hesperocallis or polianthes.
He concludes:
"Placing Hastingsia, Chlorogalum, and Camassia in the Agavaceae renders
that family difficult to identify based on macroscopic characters. It is
possible that further sampling will identify two related lineages: one a
desert-adapted Agavaceae and another the forest-adapted Hostaceae (this
name replaces the illegitimate Funkiaceae). If, as seems likely, these taxa
are all hopelessly related, we may have to place them in one big,
dysfunctional family. Until we develop a field lens powerful enough to
count chromosomes, or invent a pocket DNA sequencer, this group may be hard
to define based on field characters. However, all included species have a
rosette of basal, often undulate leaves. The flowers are borne on a raceme
or panicle, with bracts along its length and subtending the flowers. The
petals are nearly free, generally being joined at the base."
This last sentence is an example of what in the previous article it was
predicted would be done, an attempt to make a definition for disparate
specimens. I think the hard part for many of us is deciding what model to
follow. Do you change your labels and go with something that cannot be
easily detected by the naked eye or even a hand lens?
I was having a discussion with a friend who is rewriting a book identifying
local flora. She has always divided the book by families and was distressed
about all the changes she'd have to make in the revision and was also
wondering what the common names were for the new families since she had
labeled the family names by their common names, not their scientific names,
just as she describes the plants by their common names although in this
case she adds the scientific name in small type below. I told her the
public who uses her book looks at her drawings and pays little attention to
the families and appreciates that she has divided it by color of the
flowers. Most of the people who use the book aren't going to care if she
has included a family name. But she still wants to arrange it in "the
correct way." In the front of her book she has a key to the families and if
she continues it in the revision I can see how she might struggle a bit to
make everything fit.
What are others in this group doing? Changing or holding out for the
previous order?
And please John Bryan if you respond to this, remove my message so it won't
be included twice in the digest. Thanks.
And does anyone know what the common name is for the new Themidaceae family
that Mark is so fond of?
Mary Sue