In article ,
Des Higgins writes:
|
| My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
| realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
| know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
| have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
| Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. ...

That was pure dogmatism - there is no other word for it. It was
completely unnecessary and UTTERLY stupid, too, because removing
the naming genus or adding one that overrides it causes the family
to be renamed.

What IS Leguminosae called this week, anyway?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message
, Des
Higgins writes
On Sep 1, 4:45*am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. *It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. *It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob *wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as
many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? *It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).


That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these descriptive
family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's still
legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae, and,
if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Des Higgins writes:
|
| My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
| realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
| know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
| have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
| Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. ...

That was pure dogmatism - there is no other word for it. It was
completely unnecessary and UTTERLY stupid, too, because removing
the naming genus or adding one that overrides it causes the family
to be renamed.

What IS Leguminosae called this week, anyway?

Leguminosae (or Fabaceae). (Note that removing Faba as a genus hasn't
caused the family to be renamed.)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Nick wrote:

What IS Leguminosae called this week, anyway?

Oh you choose: fabaceae, papilionaceae, caesalpiniaceae, mimosaceae.
So we have pea-like keeled flowers for the fabacea, keel-less open
flowers for the papilionacea, same but with a mass of stamens for the
caesalipinacea and ceasalpinia-like flowers without the petals for the
mimosaceae. In this basis, lets invent a totally new one for fun,
because that's what seems to be going on. I think we need to shift
the peanut - Arachis into the arachaceae because it is unique in its
method of seed distribution and the elongation and interment of its
seed pods.

For f***'s sake they are all legumes with very strongly recognisable
and familial characteristics, so why mess it all about? Did anyone
really complain that the family was too large and unwieldy? What's
wrong with a bit of diversity within a family? Does it matter that
there are variations on a theme?

Sorry guys, I know I'm getting manic, but I just don't see any
justification apart from carrying out monumental revisions to justify
taxonomists existences.

At one time, major revisions were proposed and reviewed over a period
of time with no great haste for fear of mistakes and the need for
refelction. Even then species and genera moved back and forth, but
not with the giddy excesses of today.

Stewart,
I'll wholeheartedly agree that pushing Hebe back into Veronica is
every bit as bad as serial splitting and the idea that all cactaceae
should be one genus is utterly ludicrous. However, it just seems that
the extremists are running the show for their own self gratification.
In other words even in the world of botany, the lunatics have control
of the asylum. The splitters seem to be wreaking so much havoc that
we need equally maniacal lumpers to maintain status quo.

Moderation is the key - shift something that is clearly wrong, but
don't go smashing things up and re-inventing new genera for no
genuinely good reason. Especially when (as in the case of orchids ie.
Odontoglossum, now decimated into half a dozen or more weird genera)
they are clearly genetically compatible and therefore very closely
allied. How the hell are we to convince people that using 'proper'
names is better than 'common' names in the face of all this?

Crikey, I bet the Op (DC) is wondering what can of worms he's opened
up. We haven't had a decent thrash-out like this here on urg for a
long time. All because of an un-named Doritaenopsis hybrid too!

In article ,
Dave Poole writes:
|
| Moderation is the key - shift something that is clearly wrong, but
| don't go smashing things up and re-inventing new genera for no
| genuinely good reason. Especially when (as in the case of orchids ie.
| Odontoglossum, now decimated into half a dozen or more weird genera)
| they are clearly genetically compatible and therefore very closely
| allied.

I think that's a very good criterion. When inter-generic hybrids
are easy to produce, and fertile, that surely is evidence that the
generic boundaries are too specific?

| Crikey, I bet the Op (DC) is wondering what can of worms he's opened
| up. We haven't had a decent thrash-out like this here on urg for a
| long time. All because of an un-named Doritaenopsis hybrid too!

Well, we could get started on my bugbear - cladists! Obviously
Prunus spinosa needs to be abolished as a category, because it is
no sort of a clade (being a descendant of P. cerasifera and
Microcerasus/Prunus microcarpa and an ancestor of P. domestica).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message
,
Des Higgins writes

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).


That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these
descriptive family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's
still legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae,
and, if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

I thought part of the reasoning was that it would be helpful if all the
family names had the same end, so that you knew that ...aceae was a
family (and if it wasn't ..aceae then it wasn't a family)? It was that
that did for Compositae and Umbelliferae.
--
Kay

In article ,
K writes:
| Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
| In message
|
| That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
| grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
| Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these
| descriptive family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's
| still legitimate.)
|
| There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
| currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae,
| and, if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.
|
| I thought part of the reasoning was that it would be helpful if all the
| family names had the same end, so that you knew that ...aceae was a
| family (and if it wasn't ..aceae then it wasn't a family)? It was that
| that did for Compositae and Umbelliferae.

That was an excuse, not a reason. If it were a reason, then the new,
recommended name could have been Compositaceae - which would have
been instantly recognisable (and memorable).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sep 1, 7:56 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
, Des
Higgins writes



On Sep 1, 4:45 am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as
many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).

That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these descriptive
family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's still
legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae, and,
if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

ok, sounds like I only had half the picture. I still find it
baffling, having to change the names of half the plant families I had
learned as a kid. It is like Essex becoming Saffron Walden Shire or
Corwall becoming Padstowshire. Those family names are great familiar
landmarks that help you to navigate a sea of nomenclature.

On Sep 1, 9:17 pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,Dave Poole writes:

|
| Moderation is the key - shift something that is clearly wrong, but
| don't go smashing things up and re-inventing new genera for no
| genuinely good reason. Especially when (as in the case of orchids ie.
| Odontoglossum, now decimated into half a dozen or more weird genera)
| they are clearly genetically compatible and therefore very closely
| allied.

I think that's a very good criterion. When inter-generic hybrids
are easy to produce, and fertile, that surely is evidence that the
generic boundaries are too specific?

| Crikey, I bet the Op (DC) is wondering what can of worms he's opened
| up. We haven't had a decent thrash-out like this here on urg for a
| long time. All because of an un-named Doritaenopsis hybrid too!

Well, we could get started on my bugbear - cladists! Obviously
Prunus spinosa needs to be abolished as a category, because it is
no sort of a clade (being a descendant of P. cerasifera and
Microcerasus/Prunus microcarpa and an ancestor of P. domestica).


????????GASP!!! You used the C word.
Nick you are a cad and a bounder.

Des


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Des Higgins writes:
|
| ????????GASP!!! You used the C word.
| Nick you are a cad and a bounder.

Perhaps :-) I did have to wash my mouth out with red wine to remove
the bad taste ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Dave Poole writes:
|
| Moderation is the key - shift something that is clearly wrong, but
| don't go smashing things up and re-inventing new genera for no
| genuinely good reason. Especially when (as in the case of orchids ie.
| Odontoglossum, now decimated into half a dozen or more weird genera)
| they are clearly genetically compatible and therefore very closely
| allied.

I think that's a very good criterion. When inter-generic hybrids
are easy to produce, and fertile, that surely is evidence that the
generic boundaries are too specific?

You might like to consider the implications of that for Orchidaceae. For
example the hybrid genus ×Adamara is Brassavola x Cattleya x Epidendrum
x Laelia, so it would seem that at least two pairs of those genera
produce fertile hybrids.


| Crikey, I bet the Op (DC) is wondering what can of worms he's opened
| up. We haven't had a decent thrash-out like this here on urg for a
| long time. All because of an un-named Doritaenopsis hybrid too!

Well, we could get started on my bugbear - cladists! Obviously
Prunus spinosa needs to be abolished as a category, because it is
no sort of a clade (being a descendant of P. cerasifera and
Microcerasus/Prunus microcarpa and an ancestor of P. domestica).


Point of order. Prunus spinosa being an allopolyploid doesn't exclude it
from being a clade. Some allopolyploid species are - e.g. Spartina
anglica - and others - e.g. Tragopogon micellus - aren't.

Anyway, most cladists accept that species can be paraphyletic.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message
, Des
Higgins writes
On Sep 1, 7:56 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
, Des
Higgins writes



On Sep 1, 4:45 am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia,
Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as
many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).

That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these descriptive
family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's still
legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae, and,
if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

ok, sounds like I only had half the picture. I still find it
baffling, having to change the names of half the plant families I had
learned as a kid. It is like Essex becoming Saffron Walden Shire or
Corwall becoming Padstowshire. Those family names are great familiar
landmarks that help you to navigate a sea of nomenclature.


I'm puzzled as to what the half of plant families are that have had
their names changed. Liliaceae was chopped into pieces late last
century, and Fumariaceae and Corylaceae nowadays tend to be sunk in
Papaveraceae and Betulaceae nowadays, there's been a considerable
restructuring around Scrophulariaceae, and there is a generally tendency
to lump families nowadays. But Liliaceae and Scrophulariaceae still
exist.

For example the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group lumps Malvaceae, Bombacaceae,
Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae (as per Cronquist) into Malvaceae (but the
new Heywood et al chops this into 12 families). Over history this group
has been divided into as few as 2, or as many as 14 families. Several
more distantly related groups were placed in Tiliaceae in the past.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| I think that's a very good criterion. When inter-generic hybrids
| are easy to produce, and fertile, that surely is evidence that the
| generic boundaries are too specific?
|
| You might like to consider the implications of that for Orchidaceae. For
| example the hybrid genus ×Adamara is Brassavola x Cattleya x Epidendrum
| x Laelia, so it would seem that at least two pairs of those genera
| produce fertile hybrids.

The implication is obvious: either the generic boundaries should be
accepted to be for the purposes of nomenclature (and so the current
fashion for renaming should be ruled out of order), or all of those
genera should be regarded as one - and possibly a single species.

As is obvious, I regard the first choice as a no-brainer. Linnaeus
and almost all subsequent taxonomists (up until the lunatics took
over the asylum) chose pragmatism in choosing generic and specific
levels over an arbitrary set of dogmatic rules.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sep 2, 1:49 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
, Des
Higgins writes



On Sep 1, 7:56 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
, Des
Higgins writes

On Sep 1, 4:45 am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia,
Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as
many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).

That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera.
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these descriptive
family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's still
legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae, and,
if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

ok, sounds like I only had half the picture. I still find it
baffling, having to change the names of half the plant families I had
learned as a kid. It is like Essex becoming Saffron Walden Shire or
Corwall becoming Padstowshire. Those family names are great familiar
landmarks that help you to navigate a sea of nomenclature.

I'm puzzled as to what the half of plant families are that have had
their names changed. Liliaceae was chopped into pieces late last
century, and Fumariaceae and Corylaceae nowadays tend to be sunk in
Papaveraceae and Betulaceae nowadays, there's been a considerable
restructuring around Scrophulariaceae, and there is a generally tendency
to lump families nowadays. But Liliaceae and Scrophulariaceae still
exist.

For example the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group lumps Malvaceae, Bombacaceae,
Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae (as per Cronquist) into Malvaceae (but the
new Heywood et al chops this into 12 families). Over history this group
has been divided into as few as 2, or as many as 14 families. Several
more distantly related groups were placed in Tiliaceae in the past.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

To name just a few that I can remember that I was brought up with:

Graminae
Umbelliferae
Compositae
Papillionaceae (and Leguminosae)
Cruciferae

ok, "half" is an exaggeration; it is "loads" though if you go through
the common ones (ones with familiar native and garden species).

On Sep 2, 3:34*pm, Des Higgins wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:49 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:





In message
, Des
Higgins writes

On Sep 1, 7:56 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
, Des
Higgins writes

On Sep 1, 4:45 am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. *It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. *It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob *wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia,
Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as
many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? *It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. *Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. *In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. * I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).

That's not completely true - several descriptive family names were
grandfathered in as legitimate alternatives to names based on genera..
Leguminosae and Compositae are among them. (The use of these descriptive
family names is less frequent than it used to be, but it's still
legitimate.)

There's are also a few family names based on genus names that are not
currently recognised, e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Theaceae, and,
if I recall correctly, Cactaceae.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

ok, sounds like I only had half the picture. *I still find it
baffling, having to change the names of half the plant families I had
learned as a kid. *It is like Essex becoming Saffron Walden Shire or
Corwall becoming Padstowshire. * Those family names are great familiar
landmarks that help you to navigate a sea of nomenclature.

I'm puzzled as to what the half of plant families are that have had
their names changed. Liliaceae was chopped into pieces late last
century, and Fumariaceae and Corylaceae nowadays tend to be sunk in
Papaveraceae and Betulaceae nowadays, there's been a considerable
restructuring around Scrophulariaceae, and there is a generally tendency
to lump families nowadays. But Liliaceae and Scrophulariaceae still
exist.

For example the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group lumps Malvaceae, Bombacaceae,
Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae (as per Cronquist) into Malvaceae (but the
new Heywood et al chops this into 12 families). Over history this group
has been divided into as few as 2, or as many as 14 families. Several
more distantly related groups were placed in Tiliaceae in the past.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

To name just a few that I can remember that I was brought up with:

Graminae
Umbelliferae
Compositae
Papillionaceae (and Leguminosae)
Cruciferae

ok, "half" is an exaggeration; it is "loads" though if you go through
the common ones (ones with familiar native and garden species).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ok, to be fair, I have only managed to think of 2 more (Labiatae and
Guttiferae) so it is not so many.