How to chop up a tree

By R. Brummitt. 2002

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8a71e070d348e2549d88dd8c60f224b91723b348

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. I. Peralta
2. D. Spooner
3. S. Knapp
4. U. Eggli
5. Richard E. Olmstead
6. E. Hörandl
7. R. Nyffeler
8. T. Stuessy

In Plant Science

1. I. Peralta
2. D. Spooner
3. S. Knapp
4. U. Eggli
5. Richard E. Olmstead
6. E. Hörandl
7. R. Nyffeler
8. T. Stuessy

Citations in the corpus

• Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification (2010, background): “It is no surprise that practice-oriented taxonomists (Brummitt, 2002, 2006, 2008; Farjon, 2005, 2007) and users (Brickell & al., 2008; Yoon, 2009) are hesitant to accept classifications that admit only holophyletic taxa.”
• Disintegrating Portulacaceae: a new familial classification of the suborder Portulacineae (Caryophyllales) based on molecular and morphological data (2010, background): “Hiding behind established tradition of Portulacaceae classification with the notion that “there are no characters by which anyone has ever thought to divide it [Portulacaceae] into two families” (Brummitt, 2002: 36) is not helpful to plant systematics in the long term.”
• Comparison of AFLPs with other markers for phylogenetic inference in wild tomatoes [Solanum L. section Lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettst.] (2005, background): “Some continue to use the Lycopersicon names (e.g., Nuez & al., 2004), adopting arguments of Brummitt (2002) that Linnaean nomenclature without paraphyletic taxa is a logical impossibility.”
• Classification of Convolvulaceae: A Phylogenetic Approach (2009, background): “Classification based exclusively on monophyletic groups provides a more efficient way to store, communicate, and retrieve information and has greater predictive value (Farris 1979; Donoghue and Cantino 1987; for different opinions see Cronquist 1987; Brummit 2002).”
• History and Concepts of Big Plant Genera (2004, background): “The latter may favour retention of some widely accepted and broad (but "basal") circumscriptions within whatever lineages beco e effectively established as holophyletic (cf. Sepkoski, 1996: 243-244; Platnick, 2001; Brummitt, 2002).”