"Malcolm Manners" wrote in message
...
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.

Malcolm

Thanks. I was not aware of these exceptions. I wonder if any
recent work uses the first named terms.

Things are further complicated by the partial adoption APG
nomenclature alongside Cronquist and splitting Liliaceae into
several separate families. It is difficult for an old, amateur
botanist to keep up!

Peter