You say Fabaceae, I say Papilionaceae...

Another messy taxonomy question, it would seem. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says when Papilionaceae is used, it is preserved against Fabaceae. Which I take to mean that it is the family name preferred/recognized over the other name for particular genera. However, I can't find where they list the genera that use Papilionaceae.

Specifically in the case of Lathyrus, I find many sources are wishy-washy, and list both. Some lean one way; others the other. Some still use the older name of Leguminosae.

It really doesn't matter to me, but our database has a hodge-podge of family names for this genus, and I'd rather have consistency. Any insights, references for further reading, or just plain opinion?

I understand that under the Cronquist family system Papilionaceae is a synonym of Fabaceae, while other taxonymy systems are still using various family names.

The RHS are using Leguminosae, split into 3 sub-families; Mimosaceae, Papilionaceae and Caesalpiniaceae, written thusly, Leguminosae/Papilionaceae. http://www.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/naming.asp

I really don't know what to suggest for now since no one seems to be sure whats going on and Fabaceae is considered rather too ambiguous by a number of establishments. I may send out a couple of emails next week to see what they dredge up but again it will only be an individual opinion on a very complex family *G*

This message was edited Sunday, Oct 13th 4:47 AM

Aaah, i'd been having fun with this too, when entering acacia. I was following the RHS, but forgot to put in the Mimosaceaea after Leguminoseae
Oh what a tangled web...........

Lets toss a coin :)

Finding things in that data base is hard, when you can not spell, like me. The frist time I found daves, I was outraged that there was no flanders poppy, but it was under corn poppy. I simply use my about Bug Girl Page, now, to reveiw any of the entries, I have created instead of the search. Without that page, I would never find any thing I had done on the data base again. For example I am looking for a Viola, I go to my page and click on the entry for one I did then click on the genes to bring up everything Viola. So many times the direct search yeilds no result for a plant, when they plant is really there.

Not to get too far afield, but to address Bug_girl's issue: yes, the database is a stickler for spelling. A while back, Dave had tried a "fuzzy logic" search feature that was patient with poor spelling. Unfortunately, it was a huge drain on the site. But you never know when Dave will have another epiphany, and a kinder/gentler search engine will be implemented.)

In the meantime, here are some tips to help you navigate the PDB (in addition to what you've already come up with):

1) When you're having trouble finding a particular plant, think about its name, and pick out the single most unique word within it - it could be the genus, the species, or part of its common or cultivar name. Try searching on just that word. (But make sure it's unique - pulling up Daylily won't help you much :)

2) As Bug_girl has learned, once you get to an entry in the same family or genus, you can click on the genus name and see all other entries in that genus. Which can be a nice shortcut for the smaller genera.

3) Consider installing the Google toolbar on your desktop. Once you've installed it, you'll have a "search the site" option, which means you have Google's search engine at your disposal. One caveat: Google indexes the site roughly once a month, so anything entered more recently than that will not come up in a search. But the bulk of the PDB has been fully indexed by Google, so this tool can be very handy.

Back to the question. Ugh. Anyone have a quarter? It really doesn't matter to me which family name we use; I just want us to be consistent, and hopefully choose the correct family name, so we don't have to edit them again in the near future.

Here is another tip, if I can't spell a plant, I go to google and type in the wrong spelling and it corrects it for me. With the correct spelling in hand, I then paste it into the data base search.

If the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says that Papilionaceae is preserved against Fabaceae then I suggest we keep the Papillionaceae. Until further notice of course *G*

Several emails resulted in much of the same as I described above.

Let me know what genera are indistinct and I'll help out as much as I can.

Sounds like you gals are growing Butterflies!!!!! this business is changing rapidly..nomenclature...the one that is really causing problems is the Brugmansia versus the Datura! And in the botanical rose species and genera, and, and, and..........???????? rosaceae "Glauca" to Rubrifolia......vice-versa???? There are too many politics in the biological nomenclature!, as with everything else! Elaine PS......we will also find that the Greek to the Latin is different....

Politics have always played their part (everywhere!) but I think the biggest difficulty right now are the changes due to the DNA classification in the majority of cases. I can't comment on Datura and Brugmansia, definitely not in my field *G*

What do you mean by the Greek to the Latin is different?

All right Baa - fill me in. What do you mean by DNA classification?

Poppysue

The classification of plant families is changing. Linnaeus based his classification system on the sexual parts of the plants, this evolved into morphology classification which has been in use for a long time. This too evolved with the development of various technologies, then computers and DNA sequencing came on the scene.

DNA sequencing is now being used as the classification tool for plant families, the work isn't finished and probably never will be with the onset of newer technologies in the future (same as the morphology classification). It has proved that many of the genera were correctly placed by the morphology classification (as far as we know today, tomorrow may be a different story *G*), however it has turned up a couple of interesting relatives (Fumariaceae being very closely related to Papaveraceae to become a sub family is one).

I hope that helps, if not let me know and I'll see if I can confuse myself some more ;)

Ok, Baa, the hyperlink you pointed out...dictates that there is a Greek and Latin mix...these two languages are not the same..yet as the link says..these words have been Latinized..and once this happens, they are incorporated into the botanical or biological nomenclature, of different books of reference! that's what I meant..Elaine

Ahh I understand now 1601, thanks!

Having a knowledge of Latin as a language can be of no help in botanical nomenclature. There are few names used that match up exactly with the Latin as was written and spoken by those who used it as a language.

This message was edited Wednesday, Nov 13th 10:58 AM