User:Peter coxhead/sandbox

Strumaria


Species of Strumaria are deciduous bulbous plants. Their bulbs are generally small, around 7 – 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 – 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 –. When dry, the fruiting heads detach from the scape and are rolled away by the wind, thus dispersing the seeds.
 * Description

WGSRPD maps
See 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



 * 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

 * 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:

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:

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 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 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 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. <!-- The genus Papaver is closely related to the genera Meconopsis, Stylomecon and Roemeria. Molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that within the subfamily Papaveroideae these four genera form a monophyletic group (i.e. a group formed of all the descendants of a common ancestor). However, such studies also show that the genus Papaver is not monophyletic. The genus Papaver was divided into 11 sections by Kadereit in 1988. The cladogram below shows one hypothesis of the evolutionary relationship between among these sections and the genera Meconopsis, Stylomecon and Roemeria.

Papaver section Argemonidium
As circumscribed by Kadereit in 1986, Papaver sect. Argemonidium includes four annual species of poppy: P. argemone, P. pavonium, P. apulum and P. hybridum, occurring in Europe and the Middle East through to the Himalayas. Morphological characters that support the grouping of these species and their separation from the rest of the genus include long internodes above the basal leaf rosette, bristly capsules with a plug at the apex, and polyporate pollen grains.

The four species are closely related according to molecular phylogenetic studies, and form a sister group to all other species of Papaver. The section forms a clade with the genus Roemeria, thus making Papaver at least paraphyletic. Carolan et al. suggest that P. sect. Argemonidium should be raised to genus status, but remain distinct from Roemeria.

Papaver section Meconella
Papaver sect. Meconella consists of about 30 species, including P. alpinum, P. miyabeanum and P. radicatum. They are very widely distributed around the Northern Hemisphere. The section has been distinguished from the rest of the genus Papaver by characters such as bristly, valvate capsules, finely divided leaves, pale stamens, and white, orange or yellow petals. P. sect. Meconella has a sessile stigmatic disk, apparently similar to that of P. sect. Papaver. However, detailed differences suggest that this feature may not be homologous (i.e. may have evolved independently).

A 2006 molecular phylogenetic study supported the monophyly of the section, placing it as the second most basal group, but found that the genus Meconopsis (excluding Meconopsis cambrica) formed a clade with P. sect. Meconella. This result poses problems for the taxonomy of Papaver and Meconopsis if the two genera are to be monophyletic. Either P. sect. Meconella must be excluded from Papaver or Meconopsis included in Papaver.

An additional complication is that Meconopsis cambrica has repeatedly been shown not to be related to the other species of Meconopsis, but is instead clearly part of Papaver. However, as it is the type species of the genus Meconopsis, restoring Linnaeus' original name Papaver cambricum would leave the genus Meconopsis without a type species and hence without a valid name, unless the name were to be conserved.
 * The relevant authorities approved a change of type for Meconopsis a little while back. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I was aware of this, but thanks for the note anyway. This is some work that's been on my to-do list for ages. I need to either use it or delete it!

Papaver section Meconidium
-->