> As to flat out wrong, I presume that is what Jan thinks about the
>molec. results showing the "close" relationship between the Caryophyllids
>(Carnations, Purslanes, Cacti, Chenopods, etc.) and the group containing
>Nepenthes,Drosera and Dionaea.
Yes, at least to some degree.
> I personally think this result fits O. K.
>with the morphological data (look at the lack of petals, separate sexes,
>modified hairs and the preference for "bad" habitats shown by the Chenopods
>for example), but Jan might know more about this than me.
Lack of petals could be indicative of a closer relationship of Nepenthaceae
(only these because all other cps in this clade have petals) to a whole lot
of not closely interrelated families, for this character was certainly
developed several times independently within the plant kingdom.
The same can be stated for separate sexes, and I would not call this an
excellent marker for caryophyllids.
"Modified hairs" is too ambiguous. Indeed, the tentacles of Droseraceae,
_Drosophyllum_, _Triphyophyllum_, and the sub-carnivore _Roridula_ are
rather emergences (vascularized, with epidermis) than hairs. This kind of
emergence is rather rare in the plant kingdom (stalked glands being usually
hairs).
The Chenopodiaceae prefer salt rich habitats, not poor ones (and they are
not within the DNA-cp clade like e.g. Plumbaginaceae).
Many caryophyllids have free central placentation (please do not start
arguing that therefore, Lentibulariceae might be closely related to them
8-)). Nepenthaceae have axile, Droseraceae and Dioncophyllaceae have
parietal, Ancistrocladaceae and _Drosophyllum_ +/- basal, but none of these
cps or their "accepted" close relatives have free central placentation.
Of course, it is interesting that Plumbaginaceae (but also Ebenaceae)
produce acetogenic naphthoquinones.
Kind regards
Jan