Talk:Lauraceae

Recent analyses have shown that the majority of genera are para- or polyphyletic and substantial changes in generic limits and species combinations are to be expected (Chanderbali et al., 2001, Huang et al., 2016, Nishida & van der Werff, 2007 & 2011 and Stevens, 2016). Generic groups are often found to be monophyletic, but the genera comprising the group are not (Li, 2008 as an example). The temptation is to combine the group members into a enlarged genus, however this is can be difficult, as a lot of species will need to be analysed not least for synonymy (Rohwer, 2014 & van de Werff, 2013). As an example, note how van der Werff (2013) is systematically transferring the Madagascan endemic Ravensara to the pantropical Cryptocarya a project that has yet to completed. The details of floral morphology traditionally used to delineate genera in this family often conflict radically with results from molecular analyses (Huang et al., 2016). Lauraceae flowers and the inflorescence are relatively uniform compared to the number of recognised and distinguishable genera and species. Workers have begun to look elsewhere for morphological synapomorphies and perhaps features, such as cuticle may have utility (Nishida & van der Werff, 2011). Meanwhile, there are relatively few genera circumscribed on the taxon page, that conform to the principle of monophyly. Changes will occur in time. Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition, whilst compiling the basics of the taxon pages for the genera, it has become apparent that for many of the larger genera the species circumscriptions across secondary sources is not uniform and relatively few species have been subject to molecular or mixed molecular/morphological analyses. Thus the family is a work in progress on a number of levels. Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)