Traditionally, floral characteristics where (largely) used to determine the
family etc to which a particular plant belonged. I say '(largely)' becuase I
think that at least at the species/sub-species level other factors than floral
morphology alone where considered, such as, for example, leaf hair morphology.
With the application of molecular taxonomic techniques during the last few
years, some of the associations between plant groups have been revised, and
some traditional large-scale groupings have been shown to be erroneous. I would
presume that during the next few years/decades the application of novel
techniques for determining the evolutionary relationships between plants will
result in the validity of some groupings being re-assessed. This may mean that
some groups will be broken up, or that others will be fused.
all the best,
> I have recently started to learn a bit more about plants for my own
> purposes, and have noticed something that I haven't been able to answer. Is
> plant taxonomy based purely on genetic relationships (much like animals) or
> on something else. I ask because I notice several species of plants that
> look radically different in their adaptations to their environments and yet
> have the same genus. Now generally animals of the same genus tend to look
> fairly similar. This does not seem to be the case with many plants. Why is
> this? Or is it just my lack of understanding of plant morphology?
>> Thanks to anyone who helps
>> "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of
> Sir Isaac Newton