I am no taxonomist, but on what authority can people "play" around with
nomenclature?

Peter


"P. van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
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