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 unfashionable, 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

"Malcolm Manners" wrote in message
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


"Peter" schreef
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

***
What Malcolm Manners says is basically correct, except that there are 9
names (also Papilionaceae), and that the fact that these are conserved is
irrelevant. All the important names of families are conserved (hundreds), so
that is nothing special.

Also Art 18.6. says "The use, as alternatives, of the family names indicated
in parentheses in Art. 18.5 is authorized."; the primacy is with Palmae,
with Arecaceae indicated in parentheses.

And, personally, it looks to me that Cronquist did more to cause confusion
in plant names than APG ever did. However, keeping up is indeed hard to do.
PvR