I guess I need to update my hardwood botanical taxonomy!!! I wonder how Cocus, Mopane and Rosewoods are related - if they are in the same or different subfamilies - or how distant or closely related they are via DNA studies, etc.
These peas and beans have various toxicities - Cocus is quite notorious, and according to some literature I read at a hazardous material library 15 years ago it shares many of the same sensitizers as poison oak, and at the time was considered in the same family. The articles I read were probably themselves published much earlier.
The Linnean system of taxonomy is fraught with all sorts of traps and pitfalls and homologies and synonomies that require several lifetimes of taxonomists to resolve. There are new methods such as Cladistics, DNA sequencing, etc. that are now being applied to further confuse or resolve these issues. Its worse for botany than for the fossils I work with. What defines a modern species when some can interbreed with fertile offspring? What is a family except for a grouping label? It gets more confusing when they add supra- and sub- families, tribes, etc… The genus label seems about the most robust aspect in most taxonomies (I know this through working with various taxonomists in my paleontology work) and some taxonomists are lumpers, grouping everything together (I am one of these) versus splitters who name new species or higher groupings etc. based on sometimes the flimsiest of criteria. I know of one species of fossil sand dollar in California that at one time was split into about 41 species!
Dalbergia and Colophospermum (correct spelling, sorry!) seem rather robust constructions for now though I sometimes ponder the differences between the old and new world Dalbergias, seeing as how they have had most of the Cenozoic to diverge, but like Metasequoia, is a fairly conservative group evolution-wise. Apparently this is being explored and it looks like Cocus (Bryinae) is now considered part of this subgroup, if I read the citation below correctly.
Mopane is considered in the Caesalpinoideae, not mentioned in the listing below of the Dabergieaea although this might be in a subgrouping. Other genus names for Mopane include Hardwickia (I like this one - one of my favorite hardware stores in Seattle is called Hardwick’s) and Copaifera.
Something to explore in my spare time (what spare time? I am too busy making flutes and would rather leave taxonomy for the taxonomists!). But it is interesting… In a little bit of exploring I found out we had Dalbergia growing in the eastern US, and possibly out here (who knows: we even had Bananas in the Pacific NW according to an old friend of mine who is now a paleoboatnist at Florida State) in the Cretaceous when all of these Rosewood growing regions were connected together.
Casey
see http://www.botany.org/ajb/00029122_di015084.php
The Dalbergioid Legumes (Fabaceae): Delimitation of a Pantropical Monophyletic Clade, 503-533
Matt Lavin, R. Toby Pennington, Bente B. Klitgaard, Janet I. Sprent, Haroldo Cavalcante de Lima, Peter E. Gasson
Abstract: A monophyletic pantropical group of papilionoid legumes, here referred to as the “dalbergioid” legumes, is circumscribed to include all genera previously referred to the tribes Aeschynomeneae and Adesmieae, the subtribe Bryinae of the Desmodieae, and tribe Dalbergieae except Andira. Hymenolobium. Vatairea. and Vataireopsis. This previously undetected group was discovered with phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences from the chloroplast trnK (including matK) and trnL introns, and the nuclear ribosomal 5.8S and flanking internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2. All dalbergioids belong to one of three well-supported subclades, the Adesmia, Dalbergia, and Pterocarpus clades. The dalbergioid clade and its three main subclades are cryptic in the sense that they are genetically distinct but poorly, if at all, distinguished by nonmolecular data. Traditionally important taxonomic characters, such as arborescent habit, free stamens, and lomented pods, do not provide support for the major clades identified by the molecular analysis. Short shoots, glandular-based trichomes, bilabiate calyces, and aeschynomenoid root nodules, in contrast, are better indicators of relationship at this hierarchical level. The discovery of the dalbergioid clade prompted a re-analysis of root nodule structure and the subsequent finding that the aeschynomenoid root nodule is synapomorphic for the dalbergioids.