Talk:Rubiaceae
According to AGP II the order Rubiales Dumort. (1829) is a synonym of Gentianales Lindl. (1833) with the following families :
- Apocynaceae Juss. (1789), nom.cons.
- Gelsemiaceae (G.Don) Struwe&V.Albert (1995)
- Gentianaceae Juss. (1789), nom.cons.
- Loganiaceae R.Br. (1814), nom.cons.
- Rubiaceae Juss. (1789), nom.cons.
JoJan 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
External links[edit]
I am gathering these here for now. I don't know what will be most important.
Authority?[edit]
Who is supposed to be the naming authority here? The article cites Durande, while both references within it are refering to Jussieu, the talk above too. -- Bggoldie 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, changed to Juss., 1789. Mr. Dumort must have written a valuable addition to this taxon in 1829, and changed the name. But it was rejected on some rule. (Most likely the name Rubiaceae was already well-known, and had many species in it, so all species would have to be renamed). Then the term nomen conservum is added. --Kempm 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Classification[edit]
The subfamilial and tribal classification over is very out of date and a mix of older systems. See APG website and Rydin et al. (2017) for the most recent (2017) treatment, where it is recognised that two subfamilies comprising Rubioideae and Cinchonoideae s.s. combined with Ixoroideae is the most reasonable, even though it leaves Luculieae as incertae sedis. Coptosapelteae, previously incertae sedis, could now belong to the expanded Cinchonoideae (Rydin et al., 2017). Generic circumscriptions have become much clearer and see WCSP for the ongoing changes at this and species levels. The genera and their synonymy can mostly now be allocated to tribes and the red links turned blue. However, much work needs to be done on adding references to the tribes and genera as well as using WCSP and other secondary sources. This is a big endeavour for one of the largest of the angiosperms families still poorly treated on WS. However, there still is dispute as to the most robust classification of the family! Andyboorman (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Done but more work needed. Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- The traditional three subfamily classification is increasingly being called in to question with only Cinchonoideae and Rubioideae supported by the most recent analyses, in addition tribal delimitations need to be adjusted (Antonelli et al. 2021 & Wikström et al. 2020). However a full taxonomy has yet to be published. Andyboorman (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
