Groups in the New Jersey Pinelands Gerry Moore plants.usda.gov - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
groups in the new jersey pinelands
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Groups in the New Jersey Pinelands Gerry Moore plants.usda.gov - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 26, 2023 249 likes •1.07k views

Taxonomically Challenging Plant Groups in the New Jersey Pinelands Gerry Moore plants.usda.gov What is a taxonomically challenging plant group? 1. Nomenclature is challenging. 2. Identification is challenging. 3.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Taxonomically Challenging Plant Groups in the New Jersey Pinelands

Gerry Moore plants.usda.gov

slide-2
SLIDE 2
slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9
slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20
slide-21
SLIDE 21
slide-22
SLIDE 22
slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27

What is a taxonomically challenging plant group?

  • 1. Nomenclature is challenging.
  • 2. Identification is challenging.
  • 3. Circumscription/classification is challenging.
slide-28
SLIDE 28

History of Botanical Nomenclature

  • 1736. Linnaeus. Fundamenta botanica
  • 1737. Linnaeus. Critica botanica
  • 1843. Strickland et al. Code (zoology)
  • 1867. Alphonse de Candolle Lois
  • 1906. Vienna Rules
  • 1935. Cambridge Code

….. 2012 International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Major Developments

  • 1. Botanical nomenclature separate from zoology
  • 2. Starting points
  • 3. Formal set of ranks
  • 4. Uninominal, binominal
  • 5. Applications determined by types
  • 6. Priority
  • 7. Effective publication standards
  • 8. Latin requirement for diagnoses or descriptions

(abandoned in 2012)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Primary Goal of Nomenclature

1843 Evil: “…when naturalists are agreed as to the characters and limits of an individual group or species, they still disagree in the appellations by which they distinguish it.” (Strickland et al., 1843). “Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear

  • nly one correct name…” (Code, 2012)
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Priority

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Priority

Darwin to Strickland

“I find it very difficult to obey…if I were to follow the strict rule of priority, more harm would be done than good…I have almost made up my mind to reject priority in this case…I cannot do it, my pen won’t write it, it is impossible.”

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Priority

Darwin to Strickland

“I feel sure as long as species-mongers have their vanity tickled by seeing their own names appended to a species, because they have miserably described it in two or three lines, we shall have the same vast amount of bad work…”

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Priority

Darwin to Strickland

“I have come to the fixed opinion that the plan

  • f the first describer’s name being appended

for perpetuity to a species, has been the greatest curse to Natural History.”

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Priority “The oldest fool is always right”

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Details, details, details

Orthography pennsilvanica, pennsilvanicum, pennsilvanicus, pennsylvanica, pennsylvanicum, pennsylvanicus, pensilvanica, pensilvanicum, pensilvanicus, pensylvanica, pensylvanicum, pensylvanicus, 1981 Sydney: Special Committee for Orthography

  • 1993. Yokohama: Special Committee for Orthography

1999 St. Louis: 37 proposals 2005 Vienna: 147 proposals

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Summary of nomenclature proposals

  • 2011 Melbourne:338+
  • 2005 Vienna : 312+
  • 1999 St. Louis: 218+
  • 1993 Yokohama: 321+
  • 1987 Berlin: 336+
  • 1981 Sydney: 215+
  • 1975 Leningrad: 152+
  • 1969 Seattle: 284+
  • 1964 Edinburgh: 278+
  • 1959 Montreal: 317+
  • 1954 Paris: 387
  • 1950 Stockholm: 540+

(last Congress was 1935)

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Spirited Debates at Meetings

Candolle (1869): “provoked a kind of polemic and antipathy that rarely contributes to progress in science.” Briquet (1906): “every point was argued with considerable heat.” Nicolson (1999): “we ought not act like bloodthirsty enemies.”

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Marcus Jones’s “tribute” to E. L. Greene

“Greene, the pest of systematic botany, has gone and relieved us of his botanical

  • drivel. They say the good that men do

lives after them but that the evil is interred with their bones. I suspect that his grave must have been a big one to hold it all…[It] makes one half inclined to believe in Hell, for no other place would be suitable for him.”

  • Contr. Western Bot. 15:225-229. 1912.
slide-40
SLIDE 40

Details, details, details Types

Holotypes (Isotypes) Lectotypes (Isolectotypes) Neotypes (Isoneotypes) Epitypes (Isoepitypes) Syntypes (Isosyntypes) Paratypes

slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • Q. montana Willd.
  • Q. prinus L.
slide-43
SLIDE 43

Names originally described & typified from N.J. Pinelands

Agalinis racemulosa Andropogon littoralis Corema conradii Eleocharis olivacea Lobelia canbyi Panicum addisonii Panicum clutei Panicum longifolium Rhexia aristosa Rhynchopsora microcephala Rhynchopsora torreyana Rhynchospora cephalantha Rhynchospora gracilenta Rhynchospora kniekernii Schizea pusilla Scirpus longii Scirpus subterminalis Utricularia striata

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Biodiversity v. Name Diversity

The Plant List (2010, K, MO)

1,250,000 names (1,040,000 species names) 300,000 (29%) accepted 480,000 (46%) synonyms 260,000 (25%) unresolved

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Identification is difficult

In these cases, like the ones involving nomenclatural challenges, the taxonomic treatments are largely stable but identification

  • f individuals can be challenging due to

numerous factors, including:

  • a. limited hybridization
  • b. limited populations exhibiting ancestral

polymorphisms

  • c. difficult character interpretation
slide-46
SLIDE 46
slide-47
SLIDE 47

Quercus

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Oaks (Quercus)

  • 1. Quercus alba
  • 2. Quercus bicolor
  • 3. Quercus coccinea
  • 4. Quercus falcata
  • 5. Quercus ilicifolia
  • 6. Quercus imbricaria
  • 7. Quercus lyrata
  • 8. Quercus marilandica
  • 9. Quercus michauxii
  • 10. Quercus montana (prinus)
  • 11. Quercus nigra
  • 12. Quercus palustris
  • 13. Quercus phellos
  • 14. Quercus prinoides
  • 15. Quercus rubra
  • 16. Quercus stellata
  • 17. Quercus velutina
slide-49
SLIDE 49
slide-50
SLIDE 50

Hickories (Carya)

Carya cordiformis (1787) Carya glabra (1768) Carya ovata (1785) Carya pallida (1897) Carya tomentosa (1798)

slide-51
SLIDE 51
slide-52
SLIDE 52

Classification is difficult

ABOVE SPECIES LEVEL

  • 1. Even with well resolved phylogenies and

philosophies, the situation is still quite arbitrary as there are many different ways to carve up the tree of life.

  • 2. Situations in Aster for example can be

accommodated by making the genus larger

  • r splitting it up into many smaller genera.
slide-53
SLIDE 53

Classification is difficult

ABOVE SPECIES LEVEL

  • 1. Monophyletic: includes all the descendants
  • f a common ancestor, i.e. all its members

share a common ancestor.

  • 2. Paraphyletic: is formed when one or more

descendants of a common ancestor are excluded from the group

  • 3. Polyphyletic: is formed when a common

ancestor is not included in a group

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Classification is difficult

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Classification is difficult

BOTTOM LINE

  • 1. Readily distinct clades are the most stable

taxonomically. Examples: Poaceae, Cyperaceae, Asteraceae, Apiaceae, Brassicaceae, monocots.

  • 2. Other groups (distinct grades, indistinct

clades) less so. Examples: Scrophulariaceae, Araceae, Liliaceae, dicots.

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Species Concepts

  • 1. Typological: a group of individuals that share

a common phenotype.

  • 2. Biological: a group of actually or potentially

interbreeding organisms.

  • 3. Phylogenetic: a group of organisms bound by

a unique ancestry.

  • 4. Ecological: a group of organisms that share a

distinct ecological niche.

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Species Concepts

  • 1. None of the species concepts works all of the

time.

  • 2. The more species concepts a group of

populations adheres to the more stable it is as a species from a recognition and circumscriptional standpoint.

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Species Concepts

  • 1. Typological: Collections of individuals that

share a common phenotype.

  • 2. Biological: This concept identifies a species as

a set of actually or potentially interbreeding

  • rganisms.
  • 3. Phylogenetic: a group of organisms bound by

a unique ancestry.

  • 4. Ecological: a group of organisms that share a

distinct ecological niche.

slide-59
SLIDE 59
slide-60
SLIDE 60
slide-61
SLIDE 61
slide-62
SLIDE 62
slide-63
SLIDE 63
slide-64
SLIDE 64
slide-65
SLIDE 65
slide-66
SLIDE 66
slide-67
SLIDE 67
slide-68
SLIDE 68
slide-69
SLIDE 69

Rhexia

Stone: R. aristosa, R. mariana, R. virginica Snyder (1986): R. aristosa, R. mariana, R. ventricosa, R. virginica, R. ×brevibracteata Nesom (2012): Infrageneric classification of

  • Rhexia. (All Pinelands species in R. sect. Rhexia)
slide-70
SLIDE 70
slide-71
SLIDE 71
slide-72
SLIDE 72
slide-73
SLIDE 73
slide-74
SLIDE 74
slide-75
SLIDE 75
slide-76
SLIDE 76
slide-77
SLIDE 77
slide-78
SLIDE 78
slide-79
SLIDE 79

Sagittaria

slide-80
SLIDE 80
slide-81
SLIDE 81