Jump to content

User:Peter coxhead/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strumaria

[edit]
  • Grossi, Alberto (2014), "Strumaria in cultivation", The Plantsman, (New Series), 13 (4): 222–225
Description

Species of Strumaria are deciduous bulbous plants. Their bulbs are generally small, around 7–35 mm (0.3–1.4 in) in diameter with a fibrous bulb tunic. Usually two leaves are produced, although there may be up to six. The flowers generally appear in the autumn with the arrival of the rains; the leaves may appear with, before or after the flowers. The inflorescence is 20–40 cm (8–16 in) tall, with an umbel of two to 30 flowers, that generally have long pedicels. Most species have white flowers, although they may also be pink or yellow. The six stamens are joined to the style, at least at the base. Strumaria is distinguished from other genera in the family Amaryllidaceae by the presence of a thickening at the base of the style, except in Strumaria spiralis, previously placed in its own genus Carpolyza. The seeds are reddish green when ripe, with a diameter of 2–5 mm (0.1–0.2 in). When dry, the fruiting heads detach from the scape and are rolled away by the wind, thus dispersing the seeds.

Distribution work

[edit]

WGSRPD maps

[edit]

See commons:WGSRPD maps.

Distribution cats

[edit]

Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions

L1 and L2

[edit]

Category:Flora of the Pacific - standardized, no regional maps

Galapagos

[edit]

Plants

[edit]
  • McMullen, Conley K. (1999), Flowering Plants of the Galápagos, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-0-8014-8621-0

Work

[edit]

Sheader, Martin; Sheader, Anna-Liisa (2015), "Patagonian alpines", The Plantsman (New Series), 14 (1): 16–21 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

References

[edit]

Hennig again

[edit]

Consider three features distributed among four groups like this:

Group Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3
A yes no no
B no no no
C yes yes yes
D yes yes no

The universe of discourse consists only of A, B, C and D and Features 1, 2 and 3.

Then in the Hennigian approach, we look for apomorphies.

  • Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of A, C, D, i.e. A+C+D are a clade
  • Feature 2 is a synapomorphy of C, D, i.e. C+D are a clade
  • Feature 3 is an autapomorphy of C

Then the only possible cladogram (bar rotations) is:

 −−−

B: −−−

 1−−

A: 1−−

 12−

D: 12−

C: 123

So far, so good. What about (sym)plesiomorphies? Since Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of A+C+D, it's a symplesiomorphy of any subset, i.e. A+C, A+D, C+D. C+D do form a clade but their shared possession of Feature 1 offers no evidence for this in the Hennigian approach because it's a symplesiomorphy with respect to A (in my terminology). [In other phylogenetic methods, e.g. parsimony, it would add support for this cladogram.] If Feature 3 is a radical innovation, and Feature 2 only a minor change, in traditional Linnean classification we could argue for putting A and D in one (paraphyletic) group and C in another. But there's no Hennigian evidence for this: all that A and D share is Feature 1, which is a symplesiomorphy (with respect to C). What about the absence of Feature 3? That's a (kind of) symplesiomorphy, in this case inherited by A, B and D from their common ancestor, but C has "lost" the absence. The absence of Feature 3 can define a paraphyletic group, but not a Hennigian clade, which must have a synapomorphy.

In the strict Hennigian approach, the only groups of real interest are monophylies; paraphylies and polyphylies are just different kinds of non-monophylies. In the same way, the only features of real interest are synapomorphies – those features which define a clade because they are shared by all members of the clade and are derived from the ancestor of the clade (although they may have been lost later). Symplesiomorphies are just features which aren't synapomorphies and hence characterize non-monophylies.

A synapomorphy necessarily involves at least one group outside the clade – an outgroup in modern phylogenetic studies – from which the "morphy" is "apo". That's what I mean by "with respect to". (For example, in my cladogram above, A is outside the clade C+D because it doesn't have the synapomorphy Feature 2. Feature 2 is a synapomorphy of C+D with respect to A – or indeed with respect to any other group.)

Can we describe Feature 1 as a synapomorphy of C+D? The simplest answer is "no". An "apo-morphy" must be "apo" something. In this case it's "apo" the absence of Feature 1. So the only group of which Feature 1 is a synapomorphy is A+C+D. Another answer, and here I think I may be departing from the Hennigian approach (although I find explanations of it unclear on this point) is that Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of C+D with respect to B. Feature 1 is a shared (i.e. syn) difference (i.e. apomorphy) of C and D from B. But it's not a shared difference of C and D from A, so it's not an "absolute" synapomorphy.

A symplesiomorphy necessarily involves at least one group within a clade whose sharing of the clade-defining feature (or possibly having lost it) is being ignored – that's what I mean by "with respect to". (For example, in my cladogram above, if we group A and D on the basis of sharing Feature 1, we're ignoring C which also has Feature 1. Feature 1 is symplesiomorphy of A and D with respect to C.)

Papaver

[edit]

There's commented out material below that is now mostly out-of-date.

Choice of automated taxobox

[edit]
Is the target taxon a virus or other subcellular entity?
YES: Use {{Virusbox}}
NO: Is the target taxon another kind of organism, living or extinct?
  YES: Is the target taxon a species?
   ↓ YES: Is the target taxon an animal that is a hybrid between two species in a single genus?
   ↓  ↓ YES: Use {{Hybridbox}}
   ↓  ↓ NO: Use {{Speciesbox}} (unless the species name isn't a straightforward binomial in which case use {{Automatic taxobox}})
   ↓ NO: Is the target taxon a rank above species?
   ↓   YES: Use {{Automatic taxobox}}
   ↓   NO: Is the target taxon an animal subspecies?
   ↓     YES: Use {{Subspeciesbox}}
   ↓     NO: For subspecies and varieties, use {{Infraspeciesbox}}
For other, special cases (e.g. forma specialis, strain), use {{Infraspeciesbox special}}
  NO: For trace fossils (ichnotaxa), use {{Ichnobox}}
For egg fossils (ootaxa), use {{Oobox}}

References

[edit]

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Carolan06" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Kadereit86" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Kadereit88a" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "KadePresValt11" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Kadereit97" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "KadeSyts92" is not used in the content (see the help page).