Talk:Phacelia

Hydrophyllaceae

It is already a well-known fact that the genetic research of APG, mainly APG I is based almost thoroughly on genetic material of plastid, that not even it is a plant, and it was already demonstrated in several works that there is incongruence among the data of the cpDNA and those of nuclear material.Berton 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to confirm the Gottschling reference, but from other papers by the same authors, it's clear that they recognize Hydrophyllaceae as a family only by dismembering Boraginaceae s.l. into several segregate families, e.g., Ehretiaceae, Cordiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, etc. (and most certainly are accepting molecular evidence that these comprise a closely related group). Whether this is preferable to treating all of these clearly related groups as a single, more broadly defined family is debatable (and certainly a POV). As with many other plant families, there is as yet no consensus as to how to treat this group, and no one "correct" placement of a genus like Phacelia. MrDarwin 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MrDarwin, they "dismembering Boraginaceae s.l. into several segregate families, e.g., Ehretiaceae, Cordiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, etc." as well as Miller, James S.; Gottschling, Marc (2007):Generic classification in the Cordiaceae (Boraginales): resurrection of the genus Varronia P. Br. Taxon 56(1):163-169 and Gilbert et al. 2005 (see reference in the article, this is an excellent work, I recommend the reading to all, for example: "Phacelia is the largest genus of Hydrophyllaceae with approximately 200 species in North and South America. The center of diversity is in California where 93 taxa occur, of which 39 are endemic (Raven and Axelrod 1978). Phacelia range from small annuals to large perennials (Wilken et al. 1993). Constance (1963) put forward an infrageneric classification for Phacelia, naming three subgenera: Cosmanthus, Howellanthus, and Phacelia.").

And you know very well that as we don't know the living beings exact phylogeny, all the classifications are "debatable" POVs.Berton 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to views: I introduced the current taxonomic view (for the current reviewers of the genus) and still more important the traditional (not older, former) based on morphology and I kept intact in the article the disagreement of APG, so that the article was neutral (with all the "views" of the several sources).Berton 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]