Peter wrote:
In the thread "ID requested on scarlet lawn weed", we got off topic onto
nomenclature. In response to Richard Wright's comment:

"My chief amateur's hate is the introduction of the rule that a
family must have a genus with the name that produces the name of the
family - Hence long entrenched family names Umbilliferae and
Brassicaceae were thrown out of the window."

PvR stated:

"Actually there is no such rule: it is perfectly within the rules to use
Umbelliferae. It has become somewhat nfashionable, but any complaints
should be directed against the writers of flora's and textbooks, not
against the rules.

"The confusion you note is probably worse at the level of order and above"

Of course people can use whatever terms they like, but rationale of
Linnaen nomenclature is standardisation, so as reduce
confusion. Unfortunately over the centuries inconsisitencies have
accumulated, giving rise to an international forum /(International
Committee for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants?)/ charged with
sorting this out. Whatever one thinks of the results, serious botanical
authors (of Flora or whatever), have to use the current generallly
agreed nomenclature, within whatever system is being used (Cronquist,
APG etc). So surely "Umbilliferae", for instance, is no longer an
option. It is not the authors' fault, but the makers of the rules.

I sympathise with Richard, having grown up with descriptive family names
- Umbrella or Crucifer are more descriptive of what the species look
like, than the type genus criteria now in use. My favourite was
"Papiloniaceae" - "Fabaceae" does nothing for me.

Peter
Peter, While what you say is generally true, there are 8 families whose
ancient names are "conserved," meaning they are legally preserved as
options, regardless of the other rules. Here's an abstract of an
article about the subject:

Article 18.5 and Art. 18.6 of the present International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature authorise the use of alternative names in the
following eight cases of families of flowering plants:
Compositae/Asteraceae, Cruciferae/Brassicaceae, Gramineae/Poaceae,
Guttiferae/Clusiaceae, Labiatae/Lamiaceae, Leguminosae/Fabaceae,
Palmae/Arecaceae, and Umbelliferae/Apiaceae. The first name in each of
these pairs is not based on the name of an included genus, and
permission to use these names under the Code has become increasingly
controversial in recent years. Our present note looks briefly at the
history of the alternative usages and then aims to indicate the extent
to which the two alternatives are used in the literature today, laying a
basis for any potential discussion of future action. A strong case is
noted for maintaining Leguminosae rather than Fabaceae when this family
is treated in a broad sense. Taxon. 52(4):853-856.