Original URL: http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/revfam.html

Latest News appended 5 Dec 2000

Vascular Plant Family Nomenclature

James L. Reveal

Professor Emeritus, Norton-Brown Herbarium, Rm. 1211 H.J. Patterson Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-5815, U.S.A.

Up-to-date information resulting from the ongoing review of vascular plant nomenclature is available through the Index Nominum supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium database sponsored by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) and the Norton-Brown Herbarium (MARY) at the University of Maryland with the cooperation of the National Agricultural Library (NAL).

What is presented here are a full listing of all validly published (and thus both legitimate and illegimate) family names as of Sep 2000 and a List of Families that I recognized as of Jan 1999. The latter basically is a raw list of accepted family names. An additional set of listings of accepted family name and synonymy, with authorship and dates of publication as I outlined the families in 1999 is also provided. This last listings is given in four files because of their size in the hopes of facilitating rapid access:

To aid those interested only in available (e.g., legitimate) higher ranks, partial listings (only up to approximtely 1900 for suborder, subfamilies, tribes and subtribes) of suprageneric names are available. These are arranged by genus or by family or by rank. An attempt to summarize such name at and above the rank of subclass in current use is available. Corrections and additions would be appreciated.

A flowering plant family name concordances is available. Prepared for an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, this database updates the concordance of Cronquist, Dahlgren, Takhtajan and Thorne names published in Flora North America. Individual fully-annotated treatments are available for Cronquist, Dahlgren, Reveal, Takhtajan, and Thorne. A full listing of Cronquist family names with links to their synonymy created for use by Flowering Plant Gateway is also available.

The concept of "Names in Current Use" was defeated in 1999. Since the listing prepared by the late Ruurd D. Hoogland and myself was published in 1993 (see W. Greuter, ed. 1993. Family names in current use for vascular plants, bryophytes, and fungi. Regnum Veg. 126), a small number of names have been newly adopted or newly proposed and thus potentially qualify as NCUs. I propose to maintain an up-to-date version of the NCU list strictly for information purposes only.

The decision at the XVI International Botanical Congress to remove the informal 1789 starting date for conserved family names in App. IIB of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature has resulted in a number of bibliographic changes to authorships and/or places of publication. For reasons I have been unable to fathom, several early references were not adopted in the new Code. An informal request has been made to the Committee of Spermatophyta to evaluate the questioned references. The confusion that is going to persist until the next edition of the Code is unfortunate.

Until the Committee on Spermatophyta provides some guidelines on the matter, I am retaining the list of early valid places of publication for conserved names. Likewise, the database will continue to present those first authorships not listed in App. IIB in the St. Louis Code as the editors of the Code failed to list the next available place of publication for certain names that preceded the reference they retained. A version of App. II with what I regard as the correct bibliographic references may be seen in my report to the Editorial Committee.

Author abbreviations follow Brummitt & Powell (1992), "Authors of Plant Names" published by the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew. Journal abbreviations are those given in B-P-H (including the recent Supplement) while those for books are taken from TL-II. Abbreviation of recent book titles follow the suggested word abbreviations listed in B-P-H.

These files may be printed out at any time. The information is still dynamic and subject to additions and corrections as my investigations on suprageneric names continue. Please report errors and corrections by contacting me via email.

CHECK for the latest updates on family nomenclature! and be sure to check out other sites.

Recently Published Family Systems or Summaries of Families

  1. Bremer, K., B. Bremer & M. Thulin. 1995. Introduction to phylogeny and systematics of flowering plants. Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  2. Bremer, K., B. Bremer & M. Thulin. 1996. Introduction to phylogeny and systematics of flowering plants. 2nd edition. Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  3. Bremer, K., B. Bremer & M. Thulin. 1995 onward. Classification of flowering plants http://www.systbot.uu.se/additions/k_bremer-classification.html
  4. Bremer, K., M. W. Chase, P. F. Stevens, A. A. Anderberg, A. Backlund, B. Bremer, B. G. Briggs, P. Endress, M. F. Fay, P. Goldblatt, M. H. G. Gustafsson, S. B. Hoot, W. S. Judd, M. Källersjö, E. A. Kellogg, K. A. Kron, D. H. Les, C. M. Morton, D. L. Nickrent, R. G. Olmstead, R. A. Price, C. J. Quinn, J. E. Rodman, P. J. Rudall, V. Savolainen, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, K. J. Sytsma and M. Thulin. 1999 ["1998"]. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531-553.
  5. Brummitt, R.K. 1992. Vascular plant families and genera. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew.
  6. Cronquist, A.J. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York
  7. --. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. 2nd. edit. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.
  8. Dahlgren, G. 1989a. "The last Dahlgrenogram: System of classification of the dicotyledons," pp. 249-260. In: K. Tan, R.R. Mill & T.S. Elias (eds.), Plant taxonomy, phytogeography and related subjects. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
  9. --. 1989b. An updated angiosperm classification. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 100: 197-203.
  10. Greuter, W., R.K. Brummitt, E. Farr, N. Kilian, P.M. Kirk & P.C. Silva. 1993. NCU-3. Names in current use for extant plant genera. Regnum Veg. 129.c
  11. Gunn, C.R., J.H. Wiersema, C.A. Ritchie & J.H. Kirkbride, Jr. 1992. Families and genera of spermatophytes recognized by the Agricultural Research Service. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 1976.
  12. Reveal, J.L. 1995 onward. Indices nominum supragenericorum plantarum vascularium http://matrix.nal.usda.gov:8080/star/supragenericname.html
  13. Takhtajan, A.L. 1997. Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York.
  14. Thorne, R.F. 1992a. An updated phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. Aliso 13: 365-389.
  15. --. 1992b. Classification and geography of the flowering plant. Bot. Rev. 58: 225-348.
  16. Watson, L. & M.J. Dallwitz. 1991. The families of angiosperms: Automated descriptions, with interactive identification and information retrieval. Aust. Syst. Bot. 4: 681-695.
  17. -- 1995 onwards. The families of flowering plants: Descriptions and illustrations. http://muse.bio.cornell.edu/delta/.
  18. Wielgorskaya, T. 1995. Dictionary of generic names of seeds plants. Columbia University Press, New York.


Names of taxa above the rank of family have not been rigorously studied, and the review here is only about half done. Provisions in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al., Regnum Veg. 138. 2000) dealing with names above the rank of family have been particularly vague although some improvement was made in the St. Louis Code. Of critical importance to modern authors of suprageneric names is that names above the rank of family published after 1 Jan 1935 must be accompanied with a description or diagnosis in Latin or a reference to a validly published description or diagnosis in Latin. In the Tokyo Code family names conserved in the Code were associated with parenthetical authorships when (a) the only basis for validation is the citation or (b) the proposing author cites a validating name. Parenthetical authorships were removed in the St. Louis Code. I anticipate the use or non-use of parenthetical authorships will be resolved at the XVII Botanical Congress to be held in Vienna in 2005. Here I follow the recommendations I made to the St. Louis Nomenclature Session that were referred to a "Special Committee for Suprageneric Names." I use parenthetical authorships only when citation of such an authorship is the only basis for validation of the name.

The following articles are mentioned here because of the their importance to suprageneric names:

  • Art. 3. Ranks are discussed in Arts. 3, 4 and 5. The principal suprageneric ranks are kingdom, division or phylum, class, order and family (Art. 3).

  • Art. 4. The rank of tribe may be inserted between family and genus (Art. 4.1). The sanctioned additional ranks are formed typically by adding the prefix "-sub" to form subkingom, subdivision or subphylum, subclass, suborder, subfamily and subtribe (Art. 4.2). Additional suprageneric ranks may be established as long as they do not cause confusion (Art. 4.3). Many modern authors have adopted the use of the rank superorder, and there is a growing movement for the use of supertribe (especially in Poaceae). A small number of workers have adopted superkingdom. My own view is that the prefix "super-" should be restricted to suprageneric names.

  • Art. 5. The relative order of the ranks may not be altered (Art. 5). Thus, in their full extent at the moment, the ranks in use are: superkingdom, kingdom, subkingdom, superdivision, division, subdivision, superclass, class, subclass, superorder, order, suborder, superfamily, family, subfamily, supertribe, tribe and subtribe.

  • Art. 16. Art. 16 was redrafted in the St. Louis Code making the provisions and nature of names above the rank of family much clearer. Art. 16.1 defines "automatically typified names" and "descriptive names." Examples are provided. New Art. 16.2 indicates that for automatically typified names, the typical subdivision of a higher rank is to be based on the type of the higher taxon. Using Magnoliophyta as an example, the names would be as follows:
    Division Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & Zimmerm. ex Reveal
    Subdivision Magnoliophytina Frohne & U. Jensen ex Reveal
    Class Magnoliopsida Brongn.
    Subclass Magnoliidae Novák ex Takht.
    Superorder Magnolianae Takht.
    Order Magnoliales Bromhead
    Suborder Magnoliineae Engl.
    Another, more complex example is the suprafamilial ranks associated with Solanaceae in some systems of classification:
    Division Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & Zimmerm. ex Reveal
    Subdivision Magnoliophytina Frohne & U. Jensen ex Reveal
    Class Rosopsida Batsch
    Subclass Lamiidae Takht. ex Reveal
    Superorder Lamianae Takht.
    Order Lamiales Bromhead
    Suborder Solanineae Engl.
    Note the terminations. All but the one for superorder ("-anae") are recommended by the Code when a name is based on a generic type (Rec. 161.2 & 3). However, at present their use is not mandatory. The proposal submitted in St. Louis to require these terminations (including that for superorder) was referred to a Special Committee. Some terminations differ when the plant is an algal or a fungus (Rec. 16A). It is important to remember that while names above the rank of family are not subject to the principle of priority (Note 2.), in choosing among typified names for such ranks, it is recommended authors generally follow the principle of priority (Rec. 16B.1).

    New Art. 16.3 makes it clear that names published with an incorrect Latin termination are to be corrected. For example, "Cactarieae" (Dumortier, 1829, based on Cactaceae) is to be corrected to Cactales Dumort.). A new example states that suprageneric names published with a non-Latin ending are not to be accepted: "Acoroidées" (Kirschl., Fl. Alsace 2: 103. 1853-Jul 1857) is not to be accepted as "Acorales Kirschl.", because it has a French rather than a Latin termination. The name Acorales was later validated by Reveal (in Phytologia 79: 72. 1996). This corresponds to the last statement in Art. 16.3 that name "published with a non-Latin termination...are not validly published." Left vague in the Code is the situation when an author who uses French terminations for all other ranks uses both the Latin and French termination "-ales" for orders. The proposal submitted to St. Louis to make clear that ordinal names published with the French "-ales" were to be considered as not validly published was left in limbo.

    NOTE: I submitted a proposed clarification of the Code regarding the use of illegitimate generic names as a type for suprafamilials name for consideration at the St. Louis nomenclatural session. At the session, the proposed rewording of the Rapporteurs properly was accepted with the understanding that the final wording would to be established by the Editorial Committee. For some reason, the provision, which was to mirror Art. 18.3, and the following example were not entered into the St. Louis Code:

    The names Caryophyllidae Takht. (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 144. 1967), Caryophyllanae Takht. (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 144. 1967) and Caryophyllales Perleb (Naturgesch. Pflanzenr.: 312. 1826) are legitimate because the family Caryophyllaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 299. 1789) is conserved, even though its type, Caryophyllus Mill. (1754) non L. (1753), is illegitimate."

  • Art 17. This article is now reduced to two provisions. The first establishes the endings for names at the ranks of order ("-ales") and suborder {"-ineae"). The second permits to use of certain classical terms such as "cohors," "nixus," "alliance," and "Reihe" when proposed in a position equivalent to order to be considered as having been published at the rank of order.

  • Art. 18. This article deals with the establishment of family names. With the exception of a few alternative names (see Art. 18.5), all family names end in "-aceae" (Art. 18.1). Names of families proposed with their rank denoted by the term "order" or "natural order" (or an equivalent expression in another language) are to be considered as having been proposed at the rank of family (Art. 18.2). Family names based on an illegitimate generic name are themselves illegitimate but may be validly published (Art. 18.3). The example, however, makes clear that while Caryophyllus Mill. and Wintera Murray are illegitimate, the family names Caryophyllaceae and Winteraceae are legitimate because they have been conserved (see App. IIB). Any name published with a non-Latin ending is invalid (Art. 18.4). Thus, many of the names originally published in French and German, but often accepted today, are invalid.

    The Code allows certain alternative names. These are classical names long in use, in some cases, even before 1753. Each alternative name is typified by the type of the name it is alternative to. For example, Brassicaceae Lindl. is the correct name for the mustard family; it is typified on the genus Brassica. The alternative name for Brassicaceae is Cruciferae Adans. Note that Cruciferae is the alternative name, not Brassicaceae. As presently given in App. IIB of the Code, this is confusing. The alternative family names are: Palmae (Arecaceae), Compositae (Asteraceae), Cruciferae (Brassicaceae), Gramineae (Poaceae), Guttiferae (Clusiaceae), Labiatae (Lamiaceae), Leguminosae (Fabaceae) and Umbelliferae (Apiaceae). When the Fabaceae are circumscribed in a sense so as to exclude the Caesalpiniaceae and the Mimosaceae, the alternative name Papilionaceae may be used.

  • Art. 19. This article deals with names at the ranks of subfamily, tribe and subtribe. With one exception (see Art. 19.7), all names at the rank of subfamily are formed like those of family names (Art. 18.1) but end in "-oideae" instead of "-aceae" (Art. 19.1). In parallel to Art. 18.2, names intended as subfamilies but proposed as "suborder" are to be treated as if they were published as subfamilies.

    The terminations for names at the ranks of tribe and subtribe are "-eae" and "-inae" respectively (Art. 19.3).

    Art. 19.4 is a confusing statement at the moment, and one that will require clarification in the future. The intent is to instruct authors that when they adopt a family names, they are to use names at the lower ranks (subfamily, tribe and subtribe) based on the same generic stem. Thus, the following example (with the correct authorships):

    The type of the family name Rosaceae Adans. is Rosa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe which include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae Arn. and Roseae Lam. & DC.
    One could also add here Rosinae J. Presl to complete the sequence of available names and ranks.

    Other authorship corrections to examples 2-4 are: Pooideae Benth. (Ex. 2); Ericoideae Link, Ericeae DC. ex Duby, Rhododendroideae (Juss.) Sweet, Rhodoreae DC. ex Duby and Rhododendreae Colla (Ex. 3); and Asteroideae (Cass.) Lindl., Asterinae (Cass.) Dumort. Cichorioideae Chevall., Cichorieae Lam. & DC. and Cichoriinae Cass. ex Dumort. (Ex. 4).

    Some authors have suggested recently that Art. 19.4 refers to the validity of names. I disagree. An example of this is as follows:

    When Bentham (J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 5(Suppl. 2): 87. 1861) proposed Casearieae in the family Samydaceae Vent., he should have used Samydeae (Vent.) Dumort. (1829) as his Casearieae included both Casearia Jacq. and Samyda Jacq. Bentham's use of Casearieae is contrary to Art. 19.4, but this in and of itself does not render Casearieae invalid. Casearieae is not nomenclaturally superfluous and thus illegitimate because of Art. 52.3. Bentham's name was associated with a brief description in Latin and was properly published so that it is otherwise validly published. Finally, suprageneric names are mononomials, not combinations (a term restricted to names below the rank of genus - see Art. 6.7), and thus for purposes of validly, Bentham's name is validly published, but in this particularly classification scheme, it is not available.

    Art. 19.5 is parallel to Art. 18.3 and to the missing provision that was to have been included in Art. 16. In short, as long as Caryophyllaceae, based on the illegitimate generic name Caryophyllus Mill. is conserved, one may adopt Caryophylloideae Arn. and Caryophylleae Lam. & DC.

    The new wording in Art. 19.6 makes clear that improper Latin terminations may be corrected without alteration of the authorship or date of publication. However, names proposed with non-Latin terminations are not validly published. Finally, Art. 19.7 permits the use of an alternative name, Paplionoideae L. ex DC. when one adopts the alternative family name Papilionaceae Giseke. Both names are typified on Faba Mill., the type of Fabaceae Lindl.

    Authorship corrections to Rec. 19A, Ex. 2 are: Pyroloideae Kostel. and Pyroleae Dumort., Monotropoideae Arn. and Monotropeae Dumort., and Vaccinioideae Arn. and Vaccinieae Rchb.

  • Art. 32. Contrary to often accepted practice, all names regardless of rank must be accompanied by a validating description or diagnosis. Numerous modern authors simply use suprageneric names without concern for their validity (Art. 32.1).

    After 1 Jan 1953 there must be a full and direct reference to the basionym or to any validating Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 32.4). Mere mention of an author's name, or citation of a reference in the work does not constitute and full and direct reference.

    An aspect of the Code that nearly everyone finds difficult is how indirect can an indirect reference be and still be a reference. While Art. 32.4 provides a concise definition, the examples associated with Arts. 32.4 provide considerable guidance. Art. 32 Ex. 5 clearly states that an indirect reference can be as simply as an author's name, while Ex. 7 reminds us that an indirect reference may be nothing more than a statement in the text alluding to another work with effectively published descriptions or diagnoses. These are relatively straight forward but often require reviewing an entire work for evidence of validity and not just the place where the name appears.

    In the case of many suprageneric names one finds the reference in the form of a name, typically a descriptive name associated with one based on a generic stem. An example is Altingiaceae Horan. (Tetractys: 25. 1843) who gave only the expression "(Altingiaceae (s. Balsamifluae))." To the uninformed this may appear to be a nom. nud., but in fact "Balsamifluae" refers to an invalidly published (Art. 18.1) Blume & J. Fischer (Fl. Javae 17-18: 3. 1829) name associated with an effectively published description (see Art. 32.1(c)). As such there is an indirect reference to a description or diagnosis.

    Early authors who were particularly prolific, like Cassini, often evolved in both their use of ranks and in the use of Latinized names. Thus, when a subsequent author refers to "Cass." for a name in a new rank, one can rarely be certain which of Cassini's many works they used. Cassini initially used sections within three families that he later considered to be tribes in one family. He also published his names in both Latin and French. Thus, it can make a difference as to whether the name, say, at the rank of subfamily is a new name or one in which rank is finally assigned to a Cassini name.

    For example, Alismatoideae Lam. & DC. ex Arn. (Encycl. Brit., ed. 7, 5: 136. 1832) is accompanied by a description in English, so it is validate by this action alone. Nonetheless, he attributes the name to Lamarck and Candolle who proposed the unranked name Alismoideae Lam. & DC. (Syn. Pl. Fl. Gall.: 155. 1806) which is associated with a brief description in Latin. Accordingly, I have given the above authorship. A somewhat more complex example is the following: Pfeiffer validated the subtribe Athanasinae (Less.) Lindl. ex Pfeiff., (Nomencl. Bot. 1(1): 323. 1872) by providing a reference to an invalidly (Art. 33.5) published A.P. de Candolle (in J. Lindley, Intr. Nat. Syst. Bot., ed. 2: 260. 1836, as Division "Athanasieae") name that might seem to be a nom. nud., but in fact is associated by an indirect reference to the unranked name Athanasieae Less. ( Syn. Gen. Compos.: 262. 1832) with a brief description in Latin.

    In dealing with suprageneric names, one must have a full understanding of the literature to evaluate the validity of these names.

    Suprageneric names published with an incorrect Latin termination are to be corrected (Art. 32.5). Priority resides with who proposed the name, not with whom first supplied the correct ending.

  • Art. 33. Art. 33.3 applies only to "new combinations or avowed substitutes." It allows errors in bibliographic citation to be corrected. No such provision exists specifically for suprageneric names except that most "transfers" of rank (e.g., from tribe to subfamily) are to be treated as "avowed substitutes" and therefore Art. 33.3 can be applicable. Nonetheless, its principle has been applied to all ranks traditionally, and in the present review of suprageneric names.

    Art. 33.7 appears to be largely unknown to most users of suprageneric names. A taxon proposed at a misplaced rank is not validly published. Numerous present-day authors attribute the rank of tribe to names actually proposed as sections. Likewise, it is not uncommon to find the rank family recognized within a natural order (=family, see Arts. 18.2 and 19.2); such secondary names are invalid.

  • Art. 35. This article deals with indication of rank. This is particularly troublesome in the early literature. After 1 Jan 1953, a rank must be stated, but before that date, it is open to interpretation.

    Names published without a rank, or merely a term (e.g., Gruppe) are rankless, but often still validly published. For purposes of priority, this is fixed when a rank (Arts. 3-5) is attributed to a name. Art. 35.4 is often ignored. If a name is not given a rank on one page, but names are given ranks elsewhere in the same publication (or different parts of the work), then rank might be established. More often, all names are rankless except in the discussion the author refers to a specific rank (e.g., all of Bartling's (1830) names below the rank of family are seemingly rankless; only in two places, and then in discussion, does he use a rank--tribe).

    Often ranks are given but not in a consistent fashion. Lindley (1836) frequently referred to one of his families as a "tribe" but not in the sense of a rank. Below the rank of family he used tribe and section, yet in other instances no rank at all. In such cases, the names may be (a) valid, (b) invalid, and (c) rankless but valid providing all other appropriate provisions of the Code were fulfilled.

    The newly established Art. 35.2 will resolve some of the difficulties. Seemingly rankless names proposed after 1 Jan 1908, when ranks were formally established in the Code are to be considered as having a rank if the termination corresponds with those listed in Rec. 16A1-3, Art. 17.1, 18.1, 19.1 and 19.3 and is position is not in conflict with the order of ranks established in Arts. 3-5. The two examples help explain Art. 35.2:

    Jussieu (Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed Zanthoxyleae without specifying the rank. Although he employed the present termination for tribe (-eae), that name, being published prior to 1908, is unranked. Zanthoxyleae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 45. 1829), however, is a tribal name, as Dumortier specified its rank.

    Nakai (Chosakuronbun Mokuroku [Ord. Fam. Trib. Nov.], 1943) validly published the names Parnassiales, Lophiolaceae, Ranzanioideae, and Urospatheae. He indicated the respective ranks of order, family, subfamily, and tribe, by virtue of their terminations, even though he did not mention these ranks explicitly.

  • Art. 36. Contrary to often accepted practice, all names regardless of rank proposed after 1 Jan 1935 must be accompanied by a validating description or diagnosis in Latin. Numerous modern authors have proposed suprageneric names without concern for this requirement. For example, when Cronquist, Takhtanjan and Zimmermann proposed "Magnoliophyta" in their 1966 Taxon article, they cited as the basis of their name a validly published 1862 name, but one that was associated with a description in German rather than Latin. As a result their name was not validly published. It was formally validated several years later, but long after it had become widely accepted.

  • Art. 41. The provision proposed for addition to Art. 41 that would finally provide some guidelines for the establishment of suprafamilial names was referred to a Special Committee. The problem was the special provision that allowed a long series of names proposed from 1981 onward that were validated by a reference to the Latin description or diagnosis of the only genus included in the taxon. This concept is contrary to what is provided for names of families or their subdivisions, namely that if there is a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis, it must be for a family or a subdivision of a family. Perhaps the problem could be handled by allowing up to 2001 suprafamilial names to be based on the Latin description or diagnosis of the only included genus, but not after that date. This would allow all suprageneric names to be proposed in a similar fashion.
  • A number of other proposals considered at St. Louis were either defeated or referred to a Special Committee. Among the defeated measures, the most important one was the attempt to allow suprageneric names that were orthographically given the prefix "Eu-" to be considered validly published. This was established tradition, but the names were contrary to Art. 19.1. As a result, numerous well-known and long-established names are now either not available or have new authorships and dates of publication. For a review of names proposed prior to 1900, see my earlier comments.

    Other provisions referred to a Special Committee would have permitted certain names to continue in use. For example, one proposal would have allowed certain unranked names in Endlicher publications to be accepted as published at the rank of family as is current tradition. Likewise, the provision that would allow pre-1908 names in Engler and Prantl publications to have ranks based on their terminations rather than stated rank. The entire question of superorder, and the formal adoption of "-ita" as its termination was delayed. It is suspect these and other matters relating to suprageneric names will be resolved at the next Botanical Congress.

    NOTE: The information on family names presented here does not reflect the bizarre treatment of conserved family listed in App. II in the new funeral-black edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter, et al., Regnum Veg. 138. 2000). I have asked the Committee of Spermatophyta to review the curious decisions reached by the Editorial Committee for the St. Louis Code believing that their treatment of numerous names will be found not to be supported by provisions in the Code. -- JLR - 1 Oct 2000

    Next Page

    Posted: 20 Sep 1996; last modified 1 Oct 2000
    Maintained by James L. Reveal
    Norton-Brown Herbarium (MARY)
    E-mail: jr19@umail.umd.edu