I was just browsing through the new Heywood book, and could not help feeling
gratified at the approach chosen with regard to the Malvaceae situation. I
have always liked the family Bombacaceae, even if recently it was proved to
consist of two groups, not closely related. Heywood & al. have chosen a
splitter's point of view and have split Malvaceae sensu APG into ten
separate families.

The book adopts a new classification, with some parts being entirely new,
while other parts look rather oldfashioned, with the justification
apparently nothing more than mere stubbornness (see Flacourtiaceae and
Ulmaceae which are maintained in the traditional sense). Likable anyway.
PvR

In message , P. van
Rijckevorsel writes
I was just browsing through the new Heywood book, and could not help feeling
gratified at the approach chosen with regard to the Malvaceae situation. I
have always liked the family Bombacaceae, even if recently it was proved to
consist of two groups, not closely related. Heywood & al. have chosen a
splitter's point of view and have split Malvaceae sensu APG into ten
separate families.

The book adopts a new classification, with some parts being entirely new,
while other parts look rather oldfashioned, with the justification
apparently nothing more than mere stubbornness (see Flacourtiaceae and
Ulmaceae which are maintained in the traditional sense). Likable anyway.
PvR

I haven't seen the new Heywood yet.

A fairly obvious splittist classification would have Byttneriaceae,
Grewiaceae, Tiliaceae, Dombeyaceae, Sterculiaceae, Helicteriaceae and
Brownlowiaceae (or whatever are the correct names according to ICBN),
and however one splits up Malvatheca. When you say ten families I guess
that they have Malvaceae (extended to include Pentaplaris, Uladendron
and Camptostemon), Matisiaceae and Bombacaceae. This still leaves
Ochroma+Patinoa, Septatheca and Fremontodendreae in the air.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
A fairly obvious splittist classification would have Byttneriaceae,
Grewiaceae, Tiliaceae, Dombeyaceae, Sterculiaceae, Helicteriaceae and
Brownlowiaceae (or whatever are the correct names according to ICBN), and
however one splits up Malvatheca. When you say ten families I guess that
they have Malvaceae (extended to include Pentaplaris, Uladendron and
Camptostemon), Matisiaceae and Bombacaceae. This still leaves
Ochroma+Patinoa, Septatheca and Fremontodendreae in the air.

***
Pretty close.
They don't have Dombeyaceae, Grewiaceae or Matisiaceae.
Instead they have Durionaceae, Pentapetaceae and Sparrmanniaceae
PvR

In message , P. van
Rijckevorsel writes
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
A fairly obvious splittist classification would have Byttneriaceae,
Grewiaceae, Tiliaceae, Dombeyaceae, Sterculiaceae, Helicteriaceae and
Brownlowiaceae (or whatever are the correct names according to ICBN), and
however one splits up Malvatheca. When you say ten families I guess that
they have Malvaceae (extended to include Pentaplaris, Uladendron and
Camptostemon), Matisiaceae and Bombacaceae. This still leaves
Ochroma+Patinoa, Septatheca and Fremontodendreae in the air.

***
Pretty close.
They don't have Dombeyaceae, Grewiaceae or Matisiaceae.
Instead they have Durionaceae, Pentapetaceae and Sparrmanniaceae
PvR

Pentapetaceae presumably equals Dombeyoideae and Sparrmanniaceae
Grewioideae. Durionaceae presumably means that they've chopped the
Kubitzki and Bayer Helicteroideae into 2?

That would seem to leave Bombacaceae paraphyletic.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
Pentapetaceae presumably equals Dombeyoideae and Sparrmanniaceae
Grewioideae. Durionaceae presumably means that they've chopped the
Kubitzki and Bayer Helicteroideae into 2?

That would seem to leave Bombacaceae paraphyletic.

***
I wouldn't be surprised. The book is something of a compromise between
the latest phylogenetic information and traditional circumscriptions.

BTW The Malvaceae s.l. treatments apparently have been contributed
by Martin R Cheek

In message , P. van
Rijckevorsel writes
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
Pentapetaceae presumably equals Dombeyoideae and Sparrmanniaceae
Grewioideae. Durionaceae presumably means that they've chopped the
Kubitzki and Bayer Helicteroideae into 2?

That would seem to leave Bombacaceae paraphyletic.

***
I wouldn't be surprised. The book is something of a compromise between
the latest phylogenetic information and traditional circumscriptions.

BTW The Malvaceae s.l. treatments apparently have been contributed
by Martin R Cheek

So I hear.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
That would seem to leave Bombacaceae paraphyletic.

***
Actually, on page 270 they literally say that they recognize Ptaeroxylaceae
as a good family, even though "This family may be paraphyletic with respect
to Cneoraceae ...", shrugging this aside as an inconvenient detail.

It a matter of priorities.
PvR

I am no taxonomist, but on what authority can people "play" around with
nomenclature?

Peter


"P. van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
I was just browsing through the new Heywood book, and could not help
feeling
gratified at the approach chosen with regard to the Malvaceae situation. I
have always liked the family Bombacaceae, even if recently it was proved
to
consist of two groups, not closely related. Heywood & al. have chosen a
splitter's point of view and have split Malvaceae sensu APG into ten
separate families.

The book adopts a new classification, with some parts being entirely new,
while other parts look rather oldfashioned, with the justification
apparently nothing more than mere stubbornness (see Flacourtiaceae and
Ulmaceae which are maintained in the traditional sense). Likable anyway.
PvR

"Peter B" schreef
I am no taxonomist, but on what authority can people "play" around with
nomenclature?

***
Firstly, it depends on the question if you want to "play around" with
nomenclature or with taxonomy. These are separate matters.
PvR

In message , Peter B
writes
I am no taxonomist, but on what authority can people "play" around with
nomenclature?

Peter

Anyone can play around with taxonomy provided they can get published. In
extremis you can self-publish, and post photocopies to a few herbaria.

Nomenclature is subject to the rules of the ICBN (for "wild" plants),
ICNCP (for cultivated plants), ICZN (for animals), etc.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for the replies. I take the points. Semantics aside, I agree that a
person is entitled to certain views, but this is a scientific matter. As
such it can be discussed in the appropriate learned journals. I do not
know the book in question, but if it is for the general public, defining new
taxa and, as a result having to put names to them, will create confusion. I
do realise that this area is a minefield, and I am sure that I not alone in
having problems keeping up with the name changes. Some people seem to want
to make life more of a struggle than it need be.

Peter

"Peter B" schreef
Thanks for the replies. I take the points. Semantics aside, I agree that
a person is entitled to certain views, but this is a scientific matter.

***
That depends.
Taxonomy is a matter of science (or of opinion).
Nomenclature is not.
***

As such it can be discussed in the appropriate learned journals. I do
not know the book in question, but if it is for the general public,
defining new taxa and, as a result having to put names to them, will
create confusion. I do realise that this area is a minefield, and I am
sure that I not alone in having problems keeping up with the name changes.
Some people seem to want to make life more of a struggle than it need be.

***
Perhaps, but there is no agreement on who these "some people" are.
Everybody points to "those other guys".
PvR

In message , Peter B
writes
Thanks for the replies. I take the points. Semantics aside, I agree that a
person is entitled to certain views, but this is a scientific matter. As
such it can be discussed in the appropriate learned journals. I do not
know the book in question, but if it is for the general public, defining new
taxa and, as a result having to put names to them, will create confusion. I
do realise that this area is a minefield, and I am sure that I not alone in
having problems keeping up with the name changes. Some people seem to want
to make life more of a struggle than it need be.

Peter


This book in question is targeted at persons with some familiarity with
botany.

Anyone writing a book on "The Families of Flowering Plants" has to make
decisions on the taxonomic classification to be presented; you're not
going to find a classification which is complete and up to date in the
learned journals, except perhaps fleetingly.

There's been some turnover in plant taxonomy over the last decade or so,
based on the application of first cladistic analyses, and then on the
use of molecular data. For example the old Liliaceae is now spread over
2 orders.

Malvaceae s.l. Has been split all sorts of ways over the years (see
http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/history.html for my draft of
the history of the classification of the group). Latterly Cronquist's
division into Malvaceae s.s., Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae
was widely adopted, even though it was recognised that Malvaceae s.s.
was the only clear cut group. When DNA data was looked at it became
clear that the traditional families were entangled phylogenetically. The
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (who are lumpers) resolved this by combining
the four families into a single Malvaceae sensu APG. There have been
other proposals dividing then into two or three families.

The APG classification, and the Kubitzki and Bayer intrafamilial
classification, have been widely used of recent years, but their use is
not mandatory. From PvR's comments it seems that Martin Cheek has given
family status to the well-marked groups with Malvaceae s.l. The
treatment of Malvatheca (Malvaceae and Bombacaceae in this new
classification) is problematic in both classification. I'd be tempted to
combine them into a single taxon, divided into 5 or 6 subordinate taxa;
making this a family, rather than a subfamily does have the advantage of
having an extra rank to play with; otherwise all the traditional taxa
get pushed down a rank.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
There's been some turnover in plant taxonomy over the last decade or so,
based on the application of first cladistic analyses, and then on the use
of molecular data. For example the old Liliaceae is now spread over 2
orders.

***
Yes, that is so, although I would tend to regard the phrase
"some turnover in plant taxonomy" as something of an understatement.

Also, cladistics by itself did not have all that much of an impact on plant
taxonomy, not at the level relevant to the general public
PvR

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , Peter B
writes
Thanks for the replies. I take the points. Semantics aside, I agree that
a
person is entitled to certain views, but this is a scientific matter. As
such it can be discussed in the appropriate learned journals. I do not
know the book in question, but if it is for the general public, defining
new
taxa and, as a result having to put names to them, will create confusion.
I
do realise that this area is a minefield, and I am sure that I not alone
in
having problems keeping up with the name changes. Some people seem to
want
to make life more of a struggle than it need be.

Peter


This book in question is targeted at persons with some familiarity with
botany.

Anyone writing a book on "The Families of Flowering Plants" has to make
decisions on the taxonomic classification to be presented; you're not
going to find a classification which is complete and up to date in the
learned journals, except perhaps fleetingly.

There's been some turnover in plant taxonomy over the last decade or so,
based on the application of first cladistic analyses, and then on the use
of molecular data. For example the old Liliaceae is now spread over 2
orders.

Malvaceae s.l. Has been split all sorts of ways over the years (see
http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/history.html for my draft of the
history of the classification of the group). Latterly Cronquist's division
into Malvaceae s.s., Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae was widely
adopted, even though it was recognised that Malvaceae s.s. was the only
clear cut group. When DNA data was looked at it became clear that the
traditional families were entangled phylogenetically. The Angiosperm
Phylogeny Group (who are lumpers) resolved this by combining the four
families into a single Malvaceae sensu APG. There have been other
proposals dividing then into two or three families.

The APG classification, and the Kubitzki and Bayer intrafamilial
classification, have been widely used of recent years, but their use is
not mandatory. From PvR's comments it seems that Martin Cheek has given
family status to the well-marked groups with Malvaceae s.l. The treatment
of Malvatheca (Malvaceae and Bombacaceae in this new classification) is
problematic in both classification. I'd be tempted to combine them into a
single taxon, divided into 5 or 6 subordinate taxa; making this a family,
rather than a subfamily does have the advantage of having an extra rank to
play with; otherwise all the traditional taxa get pushed down a rank.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Some years ago I attended a talk by Francis Rose, who complained that names
keep changing. If he did not like it, what hope is there for the average,
amateur punter? I will stick with Clive Stace. A plague on all the other
houses!

Peter