In message , Peter B
writes
Thanks for the replies. I take the points. Semantics aside, I agree that a
person is entitled to certain views, but this is a scientific matter. As
such it can be discussed in the appropriate learned journals. I do not
know the book in question, but if it is for the general public, defining new
taxa and, as a result having to put names to them, will create confusion. I
do realise that this area is a minefield, and I am sure that I not alone in
having problems keeping up with the name changes. Some people seem to want
to make life more of a struggle than it need be.

Peter


This book in question is targeted at persons with some familiarity with
botany.

Anyone writing a book on "The Families of Flowering Plants" has to make
decisions on the taxonomic classification to be presented; you're not
going to find a classification which is complete and up to date in the
learned journals, except perhaps fleetingly.

There's been some turnover in plant taxonomy over the last decade or so,
based on the application of first cladistic analyses, and then on the
use of molecular data. For example the old Liliaceae is now spread over
2 orders.

Malvaceae s.l. Has been split all sorts of ways over the years (see
http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/history.html for my draft of
the history of the classification of the group). Latterly Cronquist's
division into Malvaceae s.s., Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae
was widely adopted, even though it was recognised that Malvaceae s.s.
was the only clear cut group. When DNA data was looked at it became
clear that the traditional families were entangled phylogenetically. The
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (who are lumpers) resolved this by combining
the four families into a single Malvaceae sensu APG. There have been
other proposals dividing then into two or three families.

The APG classification, and the Kubitzki and Bayer intrafamilial
classification, have been widely used of recent years, but their use is
not mandatory. From PvR's comments it seems that Martin Cheek has given
family status to the well-marked groups with Malvaceae s.l. The
treatment of Malvatheca (Malvaceae and Bombacaceae in this new
classification) is problematic in both classification. I'd be tempted to
combine them into a single taxon, divided into 5 or 6 subordinate taxa;
making this a family, rather than a subfamily does have the advantage of
having an extra rank to play with; otherwise all the traditional taxa
get pushed down a rank.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley