[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Plant classification

I quote,
    Plants are not categorized by similarity in morphology nor phenotype, but
are categorized by seed and flower comparisons.  As you said there are some
plants with incredibly different looking species but they may be very
closely related.  Flowers/fruit/seed are used to this day by plant
taxonomists for categorizing plants.
End quote.

And, this is for the exact same reason animals are similarly categorized - in 
order for a plant to be "related" to another plant, it MUST have the same 
characteristic flower.  Face it folks, cats cannot mate with dogs, and 
legumes cannot mate with compositae, and therefore can NEVER be related. 

Now, WITHIN that family, DNA can certainly be helpful.  But there simply MUST 
be some sexual or asexual way for plants to "mate" in order that there will 
be a definitive DNA similarity or dissimilarity.

Thanks for the post, I was beginning to wonder if some of the contributors to 
this discussion really believed cats can mate with dogs, or orchids with 
daisys!  :-)

It is also helpful to remember that to GET a PhD, you must contribute 
"significant new knowledge from research," and just as soon as someone's 
dissertation goes way out on a limb, there will shortly be a whole slew of 
OTHER dissertations that either challenge the first, or amplify on it.  In 
other words, just because "Science" is quoted in the popular press as 
"Changing our entire understanding of"  whatever, that is certainly not the 
end of the argument.  A few years ago I was trying to get a noted theoretical 
mathematition to understand that his use of "Chaos" laws to explain how such 
diverse different visual patterns could develop from the slightest change in 
original conditions, that pretty well settled that the "big bang" was NOT 
perfectly uniform.  Since I didn't have a math PhD, he would not hear it.  He 
would say,  "But your argument is totally specious, since the Big Band WAS 
perfectly uniform."  Now he has to admit that the old geezer without the PhD 
was right.  Heheheeeee!  

Kind of like the British scientist who declared that Stonehenge could NOT 
POSSIBLY BE a mathematical representation of an Eclipse and other 
IGNORANT SAVAGES.  Kind of "don't try to confuse me with facts, because MY 

Which has very little to do with plants, EXCEPT - - - - - Lemna minor DOES 
have a flower! And so do many plants that WE have not seen "in bloom."  Ain't 
working with Aquarium Plants fun?  Sometimes we see things bloom that NONE of 
the "scientists" have seen.