Since I received some private messages concerning my last not-so-funny|
joke, I think I should present this aspect to the whole list. Some say they
are shooked-up about the fact that Amorphophallus and Lemna being close
.and your explanation of why they are shows just how far-reaching are the
effects of new discoveries.
>>If I am not confused, in the book
"Families of Monocotyledons", R. Dahlgren and colleagues included Lemnaceae
in the order Arales, together with Araceae. Interestly, it appeared well
nested within the "advanced" aroid
genera, being closer to a "twig" that includes Amorphophallus, all
Caladieae, all Areae and all Colocasieae. Just for information, the "twig"
with Gymnostachys, Orontium and Symplocarpus ("Proto-Aroids") are very far
from it, and seems to be almost as a syster family.
I expect we will see more startling changes before all this is done. But,
as for Arales, Lemnaceae, et al., it must be remembered that, to my
knowledge at least, there is no adequate working definition of the terms
"Order" and "Family," as there is (or was) for "Species." These are simply
convenient categories and subcategories, which serve an important purpose:
to facilitate discussion. If we threw away these terms, how could we
explain what subset of the plant kingdom we were talking about? Use the
taxonomic system, but do not become uptight about it....
>>I surveyed Lemna and Spirodela (both from the Lemnaceae) and both
appeared like "advanced" aroids. Once again, the Proto-Aroids appeared so
related to the other aroids as a Potamogeton I used in this analysis! This
is to show you that if you put Lemnaceae as a distinct family, you should
also separate Gymnostachys, Orontium and Symplocarpus in a distinct family.
Again, expect similar revelations throughout the plant kingdom over the
next few years.
>>Ok, who will be the fist one to shoot me?
Shoot you? Certainly not!