"Name that family"...please????

I started to add an entry for another species of Corydalis. I noticed that we have a few Cordyalis species listed under the Fumariaceae family, others under the Papaveraceae family.

Hmmmm. In a quick web search, I find quite a other few references list the family as Fumariaceae, and a smaller number list them under Papaveraceae. I'm not sure why/when the split in the botanical world occurred, but I'd like for all our Corydalis entries to be in the same family.

Anyone have good reasons for listing them under one or the other?

Taxonomists again!

Anyway here's a site which may explain a little more

http://herbarium.usu.edu/families/papaveraceae.htm

It appears that Fumariaceae is a subclass or a synonum of Papaveraceae.

This message was edited Saturday, Nov 24th 5:57 PM

and just when you think you've got it figured out, they will change it!!!

Ahh Kathleen you got that spot on! LOL

Given that it's a moving target, are we all okay on having these plants listed under Fumitory family? If so, I'll go ahead and change them :)

Go_Vols (thinking she should become a taxonomist because she's really good at changing her mind!!!)

Vols

Why did you choose Fumariaceae instead of Papaveraceae?

Baa, I'm glad you went ahead and posted this question (Baa and I have had this conversation off-line, since she was incredibly polite about asking me, but I encouraged her to post it here because I owe everyone a rationale for what I proposed above.)

In short, here are the factors that played into my decision:

1. A scan of my own reference books and the more serious taxonomy sites I hit, which still (with a few exceptions) tend to keep the Fumariaceae family separate.

2. A gut instinct that is probably based on the (apparently) American tendency to keep the Fumitory family separate from the "true" poppies in Papaveraceae.

3. The long-held common name of Fumitory among many of the
species.

4. Any movement to incorporate the Fumariaceae family into the Papaveraceae family seems to be going against an overall trend I'm seeing, which is to differentiate more genera with their own families. (Is that a misperception on my part? It very well could be, as I am still very new to taxonomic naming conventions, and wouldn't consider myself any sort of expert.)

Having said all that, I am not dead-set on my decision and if someone has other/better opinions I'm all ears. I do want us to choose one, and make all the Plants Database entries consistent.

So, let the discussion begin - who has another point of view?

As previously discussed with Vols (via email), I'm happy to go with whichever name as Fumariaceae is still a valid name but (currently) listed as a subfamily of Papaveraceae. A name needs to be chosen to keep the consistancy of the database.

For anyone who is interested the discussion but feels unable to answer here is a web site which explains the reason for making Fumariaceae a subfamily of Papaveraceae.

http://bhort.bh.cornell.edu/hort243/Papaveraceae.html

try this link, it list both families and show photo of the plant in question... http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/gallery1.htm

MVR

Thanks for the link. This illustrates the problem.

The Royal Horticultural Society now lists Fumariaceae family genus' under Papaveraceae, as do some other sources.

Fumariaceae is under the order Papaverales and therefore considered closely related to Papaveraceae anyway, but the taxonomists argument is whenther they are close enough to list under the Papaveraceae family as the sub-family Fumarioideae.

I've written a couple of emails asking for a little more
clarification, I'll post a summary if I get any answers.

http://herbarium.usu.edu/families/papaveraceae.htm

http://www.employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol308/papaverac.htm

Well I have to say thank you to a very kind lady from Texas A&M for replying so promptly! (Incidently, if you are going to send email to a professional with a serious question it helps to include a subject line and not use a peculiar email address (oooppppssss nearly got thrown in the bin!!!))

The changes are to do with fairly recent DNA based classification system. As previously discussed it was believed that Fumariaceae was very closely related to Papaveraceae in the first place. The older Fumariaceae family is now included in the current Papaveraceae family.

There is still work to be done regarding the DNA based classifications of some plant families. Information sources need to be updated. Until the work is done and the sources are updated the older morphology based classification system will still appear in places.

http://www.systbot.uu.se/classification/APG.html



This message was edited Monday, Nov 26th 11:24 AM

Well, it sounds like Papaveraceae is where the taxonomists are heading, at least for now :) I'll get the entries changed so they're all consistent. Thanks, Baa!

You're Welcome Vols

I learned something and enjoyed thinking about this question. I had no idea the recent changes were due to DNA based classification.

Its just a pity that a few more didn't join in with over 100 views and not all of them me LOL. I reckon, that to most, it doesn't really matter all that much what family something belongs to.

Botany is an interesting science (well OK I think its an interesting science) its a shame more gardening/plant books don't include a little more about it.

Baa, I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the taxonomy is of interest to only a few of us plant "geeks" but I was like you - I didn't realize the changes were (at least in some cases) due to DNA. Pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for going the extra mile to find out the "final answer"!

Oh Noooo I'm a plant geek!!! LOL

I'm far to curious to let something like this slide into the unknown, besides as my Mother always says (ad nauseum soemtimes) If you don't ask you won't get.

hehehe, I guess I should have spoken only for myself, huh? Way back in high school, I would have hated being known as any type of geek. Now I realize I can relish being as geeky as I want to be ;0) (An added bonus is that it embarasses my kids to death!)

u're welcome Baa. sorry for responding late. my dsl server was down all day. yes! u're right, those people from Texas A&M are up on their toes all the time. i've sent them a few emails myself, and they are right on the money!

You are all geeks, but wonderful, kind-hearted, generous geeks. I think it's great that conversations like this can take place and all I have to do is watch (in bewilderment). I am so new to gardening that most of what went on in this thread is beyond my comprehension. You wonder why more people didn't pitch in with their thoughts? Hmmmm, let's see..... (raised eyebrow). Perhaps it's all those big words. :)

Sometimes you can learn without asking the question. I have been following this with interest and learned a lot!

plant's common name are always misleading. there are one too many common names that exist out there, which often times leads to major confusion. i hate to admit this, but it is difficult to learn Latin names, it does take time, but in the long run, it is all worth knowing cause it leads to the right information on specific plants. to cite one good example is night blooming cacti or succulent. there are lots of night blooming cacti or succulents. epiphyllum have long strap like leaves and produce night blooming flowers. another one would be night-blooming cereus is a clambering, almost vinelike perennial belonging to the Epiphyllum group, of which Christmas cactus (Schlumbergera bridgesii) is also a member. It produces leafless, fleshy, three sided stems that will climb a support or scramble all over the floor, if you let them. Prickles often appear along ridges of the stems, as do brown aerial rootlets, which help to anchor the plant. In summer, generally from July to October, large, prominent buds appear. When they're ready to open, they do so in dramatic fashion, literally before your eyes--you can see the movement. The spectacular blossoms (white with yellow stamens), may be a foot long. Like many nocturnal flowers, they release a heady perfume to attract night pollinators. just my 2 cents.

Vols

LOL my Mother does her best to embarrass us as well, its a grand tradition.

Smilin and Zany :)

There are people here who have a great deal of botanical knowledge, much more than I posess in any case. Still, its a busy time of year for everyone and perhaps had the thread been made in say February more people would have joined in.

MVR

Yes, botanical names are important but we cannot alienate those who have no time or desire to learn them. I cannot be bothered to know the correct names for insect species and genus so I can't expect everyone to be interested in the plant equivalent!

This thread illustrates that botanical names are not the bee all and end all of taxonomy. To be honest, beyond knowing the species, genus and family name there is little point to the average plant addict to learn much more unless they really want to. The family, genus and species (and possibly sub species and cultivar) is about as specific as you can get, thats the idea of taxonomy in the first place, to identify. Knowing that a poppy is in the flowering group of plants is fairly obvious to most people therefore its not essential that I know the correct name of that kingdom unless I was a botanist.

For anyone interested here is a site with some basic taxonomy (its about birds but its all reletive)
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/taxon.html