Nick wrote:

What IS Leguminosae called this week, anyway?

Oh you choose: fabaceae, papilionaceae, caesalpiniaceae, mimosaceae.
So we have pea-like keeled flowers for the fabacea, keel-less open
flowers for the papilionacea, same but with a mass of stamens for the
caesalipinacea and ceasalpinia-like flowers without the petals for the
mimosaceae. In this basis, lets invent a totally new one for fun,
because that's what seems to be going on. I think we need to shift
the peanut - Arachis into the arachaceae because it is unique in its
method of seed distribution and the elongation and interment of its
seed pods.

For f***'s sake they are all legumes with very strongly recognisable
and familial characteristics, so why mess it all about? Did anyone
really complain that the family was too large and unwieldy? What's
wrong with a bit of diversity within a family? Does it matter that
there are variations on a theme?

Sorry guys, I know I'm getting manic, but I just don't see any
justification apart from carrying out monumental revisions to justify
taxonomists existences.

At one time, major revisions were proposed and reviewed over a period
of time with no great haste for fear of mistakes and the need for
refelction. Even then species and genera moved back and forth, but
not with the giddy excesses of today.

Stewart,
I'll wholeheartedly agree that pushing Hebe back into Veronica is
every bit as bad as serial splitting and the idea that all cactaceae
should be one genus is utterly ludicrous. However, it just seems that
the extremists are running the show for their own self gratification.
In other words even in the world of botany, the lunatics have control
of the asylum. The splitters seem to be wreaking so much havoc that
we need equally maniacal lumpers to maintain status quo.

Moderation is the key - shift something that is clearly wrong, but
don't go smashing things up and re-inventing new genera for no
genuinely good reason. Especially when (as in the case of orchids ie.
Odontoglossum, now decimated into half a dozen or more weird genera)
they are clearly genetically compatible and therefore very closely
allied. How the hell are we to convince people that using 'proper'
names is better than 'common' names in the face of all this?

Crikey, I bet the Op (DC) is wondering what can of worms he's opened
up. We haven't had a decent thrash-out like this here on urg for a
long time. All because of an un-named Doritaenopsis hybrid too!