Alrededor de 2,700 científicos de diferentes partes del mundo participaron en este congreso el cual se realiza cada seis años. El anterior fue en Viena y el siguiente será en China.
Los trabajos presentados pueden consultarse en linea en el sitio web del congreso.
Palacios Rios, M. Ferns in art: the last 150 years. ePoster (code P1089).
Tsubota H., E. De Luna et al. Molecular phylogenetics and ordinal relationships of bryophytes as inferred from a large-scale dataset of chloroplast rbcL sequences of bryophytes. ePoster (code P1000).
Presentación oral en el Simposio:
Sym139: Geometric morphometric in plant systematics – 29 July.
De Luna E, & T. Chew. Integrating morphometric and phylogenetic analyses: from phenetic systematics to phylogenetic morphometrics.
Resumen (IBC2011 Abstract Book PDF, p 336-337).
The role of morphometric analyses in plant systematics
has stirred mixed reactions. Applications such as
discriminant analyses for taxon identification, or fitting
morphometric data to a phylogeny to estimate ancestral
shapes and changes along nodes on the tree do not seem
controversial. What remains unsettled is if morphometric
analyses should help and how in decisions about
characters, definition of character states, and for
taxonomic grouping. Morphometric studies can be a
strong basis for phylogenetic reconstructions. A sound
integration of morphometric data in phylogenetic
analyses is by the use of multivariate methods not for the
circumscription of taxa, as in a phenetic approach, but for
questions about character homology and monophyly. A
double path is now open for the integration of
morphometrics into phylogenetic analyses depending on
what is considered as 'cladistic character' and how to
analyze continuous patterns of variation in morphological
variables. The first question is what counts as character
data: whole shape, separate modules, partial warps,
relative warps? The second question is whether variation
must be partitioned and coded as discrete states or is
analyzed as continuous data. We argue for a need to
move from phenetic systematics to phylogenetic
morphometrics. We can now integrate very nicely
morphometric data into into phylogenetic reconstructions
of monophyletic groups by using continuous characters
and landmark data without coding or transformation.
Empirical tests show that the use of relative warp scores,
either means or ranges as continuous characters, are to be
preferred for phylogenetic analyses based on criteria of
concordance with non morphometric trees, levels of
homoplasy, and clade resolution/support.