In message , P. van
Rijckevorsel writes
I was just browsing through the new Heywood book, and could not help feeling
gratified at the approach chosen with regard to the Malvaceae situation. I
have always liked the family Bombacaceae, even if recently it was proved to
consist of two groups, not closely related. Heywood & al. have chosen a
splitter's point of view and have split Malvaceae sensu APG into ten
separate families.

The book adopts a new classification, with some parts being entirely new,
while other parts look rather oldfashioned, with the justification
apparently nothing more than mere stubbornness (see Flacourtiaceae and
Ulmaceae which are maintained in the traditional sense). Likable anyway.
PvR

I haven't seen the new Heywood yet.

A fairly obvious splittist classification would have Byttneriaceae,
Grewiaceae, Tiliaceae, Dombeyaceae, Sterculiaceae, Helicteriaceae and
Brownlowiaceae (or whatever are the correct names according to ICBN),
and however one splits up Malvatheca. When you say ten families I guess
that they have Malvaceae (extended to include Pentaplaris, Uladendron
and Camptostemon), Matisiaceae and Bombacaceae. This still leaves
Ochroma+Patinoa, Septatheca and Fremontodendreae in the air.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley