In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
| In message ,
| Des Higgins writes
|
| To name just a few that I can remember that I was brought up with:
|
| Graminae
| Umbelliferae
| Compositae
| Papillionaceae (and Leguminosae)
| Cruciferae
|
| ok, "half" is an exaggeration; it is "loads" though if you go through
| the common ones (ones with familiar native and garden species).- Hide
| quoted text -
|
| ok, to be fair, I have only managed to think of 2 more (Labiatae and
| Guttiferae) so it is not so many.
|
| Ah, because the older names are still legitimate, I didn't realise that
| these were the ones you were referring to. (The other one is Palmae.)
|
| See article 18.4 of the Vienna Code of the ICBN.
|
| http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

Which almost completely misses the point! The original, and only
realistic, point of standardised names is to improve clarity of
communication, ESPECIALLY with people who are not obsessive botanical
taxonomists. Encouraging alternative names is, at best, confusing.

Even if there were a single name at any one time, it is SERIOUSLY
confusing to be unable to identify a classification unless you know
the precise version of the code that the author was using. And, when
author A quotes an earlier publication of author B, there is no way
to tell what the HELL is meant.

If I understand section 18.4 correctly, this applies to Papilonaceae
and Leguminosae, redoubled in spades and with knobs on - even now, at
this instant in time. If you see a reference to one of those, is it
a synonym for the Fabaceae or for the relevant half of it?

That code has elevated a reasonable set of default rules to the status
of Holy Dogma.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.