Talk:Cephalotaxus
Latest comment: 14 days ago by MPF in topic Family allocation
Family allocation
editOften included in Taxaceae; inclusion in Taxaceae retains Taxaceae as monophyletic in all studies, and its exclusion from it renders Taxaceae paraphyletic in some (with Torreya and Amentotaxus closer to Cephalotaxus than to Taxus), but not all, studies. MPF (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- See Yang et al. (2023) for the latest summary assessing the morphological and phylogenetic evidence for resurrecting a monotypic Cephalotaxaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did; it doesn't add anything to the above. It's an author's personal preference to recognise the family; some of the statements in it are not accurate: "Cephalotaxaceae and Taxaceae are reciprocally sister to one another and can be distinguished by the morphology of the female cones, anatomy of leaves and wood, embryology, and chemistry" [Discussion section; my italics]. Yes, the female cone morphology is very distinct from Taxus, but is closely similar to Torreya and Amentotaxus, sufficiently closely so that it is very reasonable to argue for the inclusion of Cephalotaxus in Taxaceae (e.g. Dörken et al. 2023, Ann. Bot. 123: 133–143; the most sensible position), or if treating Cephalotaxaceae as a separate family, the inclusion of Torreya and Amentotaxus in that, rather than a narrower Taxaceae - MPF (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- WS should go with the broad consensus whilst acknowledging the alternative view. This is the role of Disputed. Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why I gave it that ;-) MPF (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- WS should go with the broad consensus whilst acknowledging the alternative view. This is the role of Disputed. Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did; it doesn't add anything to the above. It's an author's personal preference to recognise the family; some of the statements in it are not accurate: "Cephalotaxaceae and Taxaceae are reciprocally sister to one another and can be distinguished by the morphology of the female cones, anatomy of leaves and wood, embryology, and chemistry" [Discussion section; my italics]. Yes, the female cone morphology is very distinct from Taxus, but is closely similar to Torreya and Amentotaxus, sufficiently closely so that it is very reasonable to argue for the inclusion of Cephalotaxus in Taxaceae (e.g. Dörken et al. 2023, Ann. Bot. 123: 133–143; the most sensible position), or if treating Cephalotaxaceae as a separate family, the inclusion of Torreya and Amentotaxus in that, rather than a narrower Taxaceae - MPF (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)