Talk:Boraginaceae

This family is misplaced! It is NOT in Lamiales... It is unplaced in euasterid I in APG2, sistergroup to Solanales or Gentianales in most genetic studies, and in the consensus tree of Haston et al. (Taxon (2007) 56: 7-12) it is sister to Hoplestigmataceae and these in turn to Solanales!  Done Andyboorman (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

sensu lato

This family is currently circumscribed on WS as sensu lato (in the widest sense), as proposed by Nazaire & Hufford, (2012). In order to maintain consistency Codon is placed in the tribe Codoneae Nazaire & L. Hufford Syst. Bot. 37: 779. (2012), as a sub-taxon in Boraginoideae.
However, there is an alternative circumscription of this family, Boraginaceae sensu strictu (in the narrow sense), proposed by APG III, (2014) and Weigend et al., (2014). This will require the allocation of the genera to the six families found in Weigland et al, 2014. Clearly the need for sub-families of Boraginaceae would disappear and tribes will become redundant.
A consensus has now been reached in APG IV apropos Boraginaceae s.l. and the taxon pages have been modified accordingly. However, note Luebert et al. (Boraginales Working Group) 2016. Familial classification of the Boraginales. Taxon 65(3): 502–5 22. This provides an acceptable alternative taxonomy that could be used and this would include the following families under Boraginales - Boraginaceae s.s., Codonaceae, Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Namaceae (name not formally described), Wellstediaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the phylogenetic approach (Luebert et al. 2016, Hassler 2021 & Stevens 2021) is now significantly differing from the taxonomy of APG IV (2016) & Govaerts (2021) resulting in significant problems for the taxonomic and consensual WS database. It is worth noting that most recent papers follow the phylogenetic approach, for example Guilliams, Hasenstab-Lehman & Baldwin, (2020). Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very disappointing that there is no consensus between the workers in and followers of the Boraginales Working Group and the majority of other botanists with respect to accepting Boraginaceae s.l. rather than Boraginaceae s.s. and its associated segregate families - Codonaceae, Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Namaceae. It makes it very difficult for WS to come with a coherent taxonomy using our standard suite of references. RBG Kew and others maintain that Boraginaceae s.l. is a coherent, understandable and monophyletic group and the proposed familial inflation is undesirable on taxonomic and phylogenetic grounds and sets an unwelcome precedent. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Boraginaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506183919/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/family.pl?160 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/family.pl?160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)