From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please give reference. I do not find this in GRIN or ITIS. Thanks Open2universe 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations contradict each other :-(
-> uses Petermanniaceae
-> "Rudall PJ, WP Hong, CA Furness, JG Conran, G Kite, KL Stobart, MW Chase 2000b Consider the lilies: systematics of Liliales. Pages 347–357 in KL Wilson, DA Morrison, eds. Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne." uses Colchicaceae.
-> Could also be Smilacaceae
I will look into this and change if neccesary. Lycaon 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If adopting the APG2-system this is a valid taxon listed in Haston et al. (2007) A linear sequence of Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II families. Taxon 56:7-12.
This is a typical example of what arises when no decision about classificatory principle lay behind listing scientific names. The taxon Petermanniaceae is for example recognised by the botanical systems of Dahlgren (as part of his Dioscoreales) and Takhtajan (as part of his Smilacales), but not by Cronquist (who included Petermannia in Smilacaceae) - all very widely used and cited systems from the second half of 20th century and pre-APG. You can also find phylogenetical analyses (such as the Rudall citation above) placing this species (the family contains only one genus with one species) in the family Colchicaceae - however the DNA sequences used was later discovered to be misidentified and actually being Tripladenia. So if wikispecies wants to follow the most recent classification implying that DNA-evidence can be used to infer relationships among extant plants together with other evidence (morphology, anatomy and so forth) the name Petermanniaceae is valid!