In article , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
+ + +
Actually the bookseller's, but likely based on the publisher's

Where would I find it; Amazon (US, UK, DE) don't know about it.

From what I read, splitting the Eukaryotes into plant-like and animal-
like groups is not supported by the evidence. See, e.g. Tree of Life,
for details. Animals, plants, fungi and chromists (stramenopiles) are
all crown eukaryotes. I'm guessing that this book covers taxa from at
least three kingdoms - plants, fungi and chromists: three plant kingdoms
might be green plants (with green algae), rhodophytes and glaucophytes,
but I think one has to dig into Chromista to find the others.

On re-reading the blurb I see it says that it covers plant-like
prokaryotes, which might be cyanobacteria and perhaps purple
photosynthetic bacteria. (I thought all bacteria were historically
considered as plants.)

+ + +
Thank you.
Actually I am always shying away from books that go very much above the
level of order. The only real reason I saw of being skeptical otherwise is

I've just acquired Vol. 5 of The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants
(covering 2.5 orders). Already out of date, in that some published and
semi-published molecular data is not taken into account. I've been
thinking of writing a review, but firstly I would be at risk of
unintentionally condemning it with faint praise, and secondly I don't
have the knowledge to judge the contents, except for Malvaceae, and
perhaps some other bits of Malvales.

the curious way they are handling names. The one moment they claim
completeness, the other they are omitting illegimate and even descriptive
names.
Perhaps they spent so much time writing that it now is badly out of date?
PvR

I think that it is better described as a syllabus of families of
organisms subject to the rules of the ICBN. (Which might be roughly
coincident with photosynthetic and saprophytic organisms.) With the way
the plant/animal dichotomy was forced onto fungi, protists and bacteria
this is a heterogenous collection. It sounds as if the top level of
their classification is badly distorted by forcing it into the
traditional dichotomy, but there's no reason to believe that the data
from kingdom on down is wrong. Then again, it might just be the blurb
that's broken; in fiction, at least, the inaccuracy of blurbs is
notorious.

I don't know what they mean by descriptive names. Perhaps they mean
names which aren't proper binomials. Or perhaps unranked taxa.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley