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 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 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

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

SNIP
However, keeping up is indeed hard to do.
PvR

Thanks.

And only if one has time. I am used to Cronquist and intend to
stick to it. In UK, amongst my colleagues, I find little if any
inclination to use APG.

I feel that the allowed exceptions continue to muddy the issue.

Peter

SNIP

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


Oh dear! And I thought that the purpose is standardisation!

In UK, Cronquist seems to be principle system in use, with little
sign of movement towards APG.

Peter

Sorry - last was sent because the previous post did not seem to
go.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
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

Well of course there are plenty of other conserved family names. But
only 8 that fail to end in the standard "aceae."

"Malcolm Manners" schreef
Well of course there are plenty of other conserved family names. But only
8 that fail to end in the standard "aceae."

***
Well, being conserved is pretty much the default condition for a family name
(not being conserved is the exception).

And there are 9 family names that are not based on a generic name (that is,
there are 9 exceptions), even if one of them ends in -aceae.
PvR

A most interesting thread developed. And I thought it was only me.

Well, Richard, at least you and I can continue with the tried and
tested!

Peter


"Richard Wright" wrote in message
...

A most interesting thread developed. And I thought it was only
me.