User:Peter coxhead/sandbox

Strumaria

• 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.

WGSRPD maps

See commons:WGSRPD maps.

Distribution cats

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

L1 and L2

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

• Category:Flora of the Southwestern Pacific
• Category:Flora of the south-central Pacific (Flora of the South-Central Pacific)
• Category:Flora of the Northwestern Pacific
• Category:Flora of the North-Central Pacific (not used as only one subdivision)
  • Category:Flora of Hawaii

Galapagos

• Amblyrhynchus cristatus
• Chelonia agassizii
• Conolophus pallidus
• Conolophus subcristatus
• Microlophus indefatigabilis
• Zalophus wollebaeki
• Phoenicopterus ruber
• Ardea herodias
• Butorides sundevalli
• Creagrus furcatus
• Fregata magnificens
• Fregata
• Geospiza
• Himantopus mexicanus
• Leucophaeus fuliginosus
• Mimus parvulus – Mimus parvulus barringtoni
• Mimus parvulus – Mimus parvulus parvulus
• Pelecanus occidentalis
• Phaethon aethereus
• Platyspiza crassirostris
• Setophaga petechia
• Sula granti
• Sula nebouxii
• Argiope argentata
• Grapsus grapsus
• Neoscona oaxacensis
• Xylocopa darwini – EXPAND

Plants

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

• Alternanthera echinocephala – created
• Bastardia viscosa
• Brachycereus nesioticus
• Chamaesyce amplexicaulis
• Cordia leucophlyctis
• Cordia lutea – created, EXPAND
• Croton scouleri – Croton scouleri var. scouleri
• Cryptocarpus pyriformis
• Gossypium darwinii
• Grabowskia boerhaaviaefolia
• Ipomoea triloba
• Jasminocereus thouarsii – EXPAND
• Lantana peduncularis
• Mentzelia aspera
• Mollugo flavescens – Mollugo flavescens subsp. gracillima
• Opuntia galapageia – Opuntia echios var. echios
• Opuntia galapageia – Opuntia galapageia subvar. barringtonensis (Opuntia echios var. barringtonensis)
• Portulaca howellii
• Scutia spicata – Scutia spicata var. pauciflora
• Sesuvium edmonstonei
• Tiquilia nesiotica
• Tribulus cistoides

Work

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)

• Benthamiella
  • Benthamiella patagonica
• Calceolaria
  • Calceolaria uniflora
• Callianthemoides
  • Callianthemoides semiverticillata
• Oxalis
  • Oxalis adenophylla
  • Oxalis enneaphylla
  • Oxalis laciniata
• Petunia
  • Petunia patagonica
• Viola
  • Viola section Andinium

Hennig again

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

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

Choice of automated taxobox

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}}