Subject: Cronquist vs. cladistic classifications

From: Lyne et Bill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 20:25:42 -0500

To what degree do the sub-classes and orders of Cronquist agree with 
recent cladistic and/or molecular studies?  In particular the 
Dillenidae, Hamamelidae and Rosidae?  Any references would be welcome.
Bill Shipley

---

From: [email-masked] (Una Smith)
Date: 8 Apr 1996 17:25:40 GMT

>Dillenidae, Hamamelidae and Rosidae?  Any references would be welcome.

The short answer:  even before the advent of cladistics and molecular
sequencing (2 independent but complimentary tools), many systematists
considered Cronquist's sub-classes to be unsound.  There are far more
orders, so it's very hard for any one person to say whether they are
on the whole sound or not.  We cannot make useful statements about how
well they agree with a particular system, before they are made sound.

Higher angiosperm systematics is a very active area of research, and
the literature is quite large.  So plan on doing a citation search(*)
at a university library near you.  The Science Citation Index is what
you want to use.

The key item to search on is a 1993 article by Mark W. Chase and about
40 other people, published in "Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden",
volume 80, number 3.  You might also want to read that paper, or read
the entire volume.

See also this URL:  http://green.harvard.edu/~rice/treezilla/index.html

* Footnote:  If you don't know exactly what a citation search is, and
you are interest in scientific research of any kind, you need to know
about the Science Citation Index.  Ask a reference librarian to show
you what it's all about.

	Una Smith