In message .com, Rob
Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 11:33 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes

I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples
being a type of rose and so forth.

Not all Prunus are cherries - Prunus also includes almonds, plums,
damsons, peaches, nectarines, apricots, bullaces, sloes, cherry laurels,
etc.

I don't think I suggested that. I may not be much of a botanist/
horticulturalist, but I recognise a false syllogism when I see one.

Sorry. I wasn't sure what you meant, so I included the clarification
anyway.

Apples (like Cherries) belong to the rose family (Rosaceae), but the
term rose is usually restricted to genus Rosa, which doesn't include
apples (which are more closely related to rowans, whitebeams, pears,
hawthorns, medlars, etc). That's when rose isn't being applied to some
even more distantly related plant, such as desert rose, rock rose, sun
rose, Confederate rose, stone rose, Rose of China, Rose of Sharon.

So Rosaceae (the family) is distinct from Rosa (the genus)? I live and
learn. Would I be correct in saying that Rosa is a subset of Rosaceae?
--

Yes. The genus Rosa is part or all [1] of the tribe Roseae which is part
of subfamily Rosoideae which is part of family Rosaceae.
Rob



[1] It seems to be a matter of taste among botanists as to whether to
break off a few fragments of Rosa as separate genera or not.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley