comparison of Danser and phylogenetic clads
Mar 17, 2008 22:45:15 GMT -10
Post by unclemasa on Mar 17, 2008 22:45:15 GMT -10
Some very interesting data although, without further explanation, I'm not really sure what the numbers associated with the various branches of Mullias's graph mean.
Just for fun .... (as it is probably better to just let Danser's group names die)
A quick comparison of Danser's classifications ( www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=evolution&action=display&thread=886 ) and Mullias' genetic groupings ( www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=evolution&action=display&thread=919 ) reveals the following:
Danser's Regiae group closely matches genetic evidence with the exception of the inclusion of N. truncata and N. rajah which appear to be slightly removed from the rest of the group.
Danser's Montanae group seems to fit fairly well with genetic findings, with the exception of N. tobaica and N. thorelii which would seem to fall within this group but which Danser considered to be part of the Vulgatae and N. spectabilis which Danser grouped with the Insignes.
Danser's Vulgatae group fits pretty neatly with genetic evidence ..... with the notable exceptions being N. treubiana, N. northiana ( ... you've gotta wonder why Danser placed N. northiana in the Insignes.(?))
Using Danser's names and Mullias' diagram one could argue that all plants in the 'G' branch of the diagram could be considered Montanae while the 'F' branch would corresponds to the Regiae.
Beyond that, the 'C', 'D' and 'E' branches might all be grouped into the Insignes. Everything else, branches "A", "B" and the odd-balls of N. danseri, N. madagasariensis, N. masoalensis, N. khasiana and N. distillatoria would all be lumped into the Vulgatae.
It is unfortunate the Mullias' study did not include N. alata, N. bicalcarata, N. ampullaria, N. gracillis or N. mirabilis.
Just for fun .... (as it is probably better to just let Danser's group names die)
A quick comparison of Danser's classifications ( www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=evolution&action=display&thread=886 ) and Mullias' genetic groupings ( www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=evolution&action=display&thread=919 ) reveals the following:
Danser's Regiae group closely matches genetic evidence with the exception of the inclusion of N. truncata and N. rajah which appear to be slightly removed from the rest of the group.
Danser's Montanae group seems to fit fairly well with genetic findings, with the exception of N. tobaica and N. thorelii which would seem to fall within this group but which Danser considered to be part of the Vulgatae and N. spectabilis which Danser grouped with the Insignes.
Danser's Vulgatae group fits pretty neatly with genetic evidence ..... with the notable exceptions being N. treubiana, N. northiana ( ... you've gotta wonder why Danser placed N. northiana in the Insignes.(?))
Using Danser's names and Mullias' diagram one could argue that all plants in the 'G' branch of the diagram could be considered Montanae while the 'F' branch would corresponds to the Regiae.
Beyond that, the 'C', 'D' and 'E' branches might all be grouped into the Insignes. Everything else, branches "A", "B" and the odd-balls of N. danseri, N. madagasariensis, N. masoalensis, N. khasiana and N. distillatoria would all be lumped into the Vulgatae.
It is unfortunate the Mullias' study did not include N. alata, N. bicalcarata, N. ampullaria, N. gracillis or N. mirabilis.
