hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Lemna and other duckweeds


All this time I thought I didn't have anything I could trade to fellow aroid
enthusiasts and it turns out I have millions of little aroids floating
around in my water gardens... Duckweed anyone?

Gabe Thomas

----- Original Message -----
From: Eduardo Goncalves <edggon@hotmail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:48 PM
Subject: Lemna and other duckweeds


> Dear Aroiders,
>
>     Since I received some private messages concerning my last not-so-funny
> joke, I think I should present this aspect to the whole list. Some say
they
> are shooked-up about the fact that Amorphophallus and Lemna being close
> relatives. Others corrected me, saying that Lemna is a genus of Lemnaceae
> (duckweed family), not an aroid. Ok, I have a bombastic new to the members
> that have been sleeping for the last five years. Yes, all duckweeds are
true
> aroids! In fact, duckweeds can be better considered like an aroid than
> Gymnostachys, Orontium and Symplocarpus! I will try to explain it (before
> you try to beat me)...
>       Taxonomy has suffered an irreversible micro-revolution in recent
> years. Since Linnean times, taxonomy deals exclusively with morphological
> aspects like shape of organs, color, etc. The taxonomic dataset has been
> improved by plant anatomy (or micro-morphology), chromosomic features and
> phytochemistry, but all of this aspects concern phenotypic information.
> After the discovery of the structure of the DNA by Watson & Crick, we
became
> able to take a closer look to the essence of the living beings, i.e. we
can
> 'read' their genes. It is true that it is not so simple to access and
> compare genes, but it is potencially a very powerful tool.
>        Lemnaceae has been considered a "good" family for much time, since
> they are all free floating plants, with similar reduced flowers.  Until
very
> recently, most taxonomic treatments include Lemnaceae as a distinct
family,
> always based on phenotypic features. If I am not confused, in the book
> "Families of Monocotyledons", R. Dahlgren and colleagues included
Lemnaceae
> in the order Arales, together with Araceae.
>        In French's work (with collaborators) concerning the cladistic
> analysis of restriction site changes in Araceae, the genus Lemna was
> included. Interestly, it appeared well nested within the "advanced" aroid
> genera, being closer to a "twig" that includes Amorphophallus, all
> Caladieae, all Areae and all Colocasieae. Just for information, the "twig"
> with Gymnostachys, Orontium and Symplocarpus ("Proto-Aroids") are very far
> from it, and seems to be almost as a syster family.  The same you can see
if
> you analyse the sequence of the genetic marker rbcL. These data with rbcL
> were not published, but I used the sequences I imported from GenBank, just
> for fun. I surveyed Lemna and Spirodela (both from the Lemnaceae) and both
> appeared like "advanced" aroids. Once again, the Proto-Aroids appeared so
> related to the other aroids as a Potamogeton I used in this analysis! This
> is to show you that if you put Lemnaceae as a distinct family, you should
> also separate Gymnostachys, Orontium and Symplocarpus in a distinct
family,
> and probably a miriad of other "small families". I don't think it would be
a
> good idea, since I love aroids with all currently recognized genera!
>       I know that Lemna and all the other genera in Lemnaceae don't look
> exactly like an aroid. They are a very specialized group of free-floating
> plants, with very fast vegetative reproduction. The reduction in their
> reproductive organs (maybe because big flowers make small plants to sink
in
> the water) seems to be strongly adaptative, and resulted in the poor
> recognition of these plants like true aroids. However, we can't say that
> they are not aroids only because WE couldn't recognize them before! If we
> want a taxonomy based on the evolutive history, I think we should consider
> those diminute duckweeds like true aroids, just like we recognize an
> outrageous A. titanum! Ok, who will be the fist one to shoot me?
>
>                                       Best wishes,
>
>                                              Eduardo.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>









 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index