JAN.-FEBR. 1958 VOL. VII No. 1 n'9s TAXON OfficialNews Bulletinof theInternational Association for Plant Taxonomy, Edited and Published for I.A P.T. bythe International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature, 106 Lange Nieuwstraat, Utrecht, Netherlands INDICIS NOMINUM FAMILIARUM ANGIOSPERMARUM PRODROMUS A. A. Bullock (Kew) It has long been known that many of the more commonly used names of plant Families are illegitimate. The bibliographic research required to establish dates of valid publication, as well as legitimacy, however, has seemed scarcely worth while. Some of the difficulties were pointed out by Sprague (Journ. Bot. 60: 69-73) as long ago as 1922, when he clarified the position in regard to a few difficult cases. In 1900 Kuntze and Post (Allg. Bot. Zeitschr. 1900: 110) gave a list of family names which they had corrected according to the Paris Codex of 1867, but their corrections do not always apply under the Paris Code of 1954, and their work was limited also by acceptance taxonomically of the families included in the Pflanzenfamilien and nomenclaturally of the so-called family names used by Adanson and others prior to the Genera Plantarum of Jussieu (1789). In order to obtain uniformity and stability Sprague and Lanjouw proposed to the Amsterdam.Congress (1935) that all the family names appearing (with approxi- mately the same circumscription) in both the Pflanzenjamilien and in Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum, should be preserved by conservation. The list included 185 names, plus Papilionaceae which, it was proposed, should be a legitimate name if Leguminosae is divided into groups of family rank. The places and dates of valid publication were not given, but the list was published in Sprague's Synopsis of Proposals . ... Amsterdam 1935. Further names were submitted to the Stockholm (1950) Congress by Camp, Little and Wheeler (Lanjouw, Syn. Prop. .... Stockholm 1950, pp. 218--221) and the full list was printed as Appendix 5A in the International Code of 1952, as a list of Nomina Familiarum Conservanda [Proposita]. At the Paris Congress (1954), however, there was some opposition to the accept- ance of the list and the Editorial Committee was expressly forbidden to reprint it in the proposed new edition of the Code. The result is that one is left with the irregularly formed family names Palmae, Gramineae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Guttiferae, Umbelliferae, Labiatae and Compositae (with Papilionaceae as a make- weight) as the only conserved family names; these also have the added distinction of being the only groups which may bear two legitimate names. The alternative names, clearly proposed in the Sprague and Lanjouw list, are subject to deter- mination by application of the remaining rules of the Code. The present list is the result of an attempt to find all the validly published family names. The first difficulty was to decide whether the provisions of Art. 5 could be strictly applied for this purpose. It quickly became evident that they could not. but 1 This content downloaded from 69.74.186.251 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 13:59:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Art. 5 may be interpreted very broadly. "Relative order" of categories has nothing to do with the terms denoting the categories and so long as the position in the hierarchy is maintained I have accepted "family", "order", "natural order" as synonymous. Indeed, some authors used all these terms indiscriminately for the same group; the strict modern use of the term "family" is of comparatively recent date. 1 It became evident also that the Code, supposedly applying to all taxa up to the rank of order, has been made and modified mainly to apply to names of genera and taxa below that rank. Many names in the list are proposed for conservation; the corresponding rejected names are noted in the same entry and they are also separately listed. There are remarkably few homonyms. Some explanation of the methods used is called for, since they are somewhat arbitrary and I have tended to treat each name on its own merits rather than by applying a set of rules. I found that 1753 was an impossible commencing date and the difficulties of interpretation2 at this early period convinced me that Jussieu's Genera Plantarum (1789) is the earliest work in which modern families became recognisable. This, I propose, should be the work from which family nomenclature begins. Typification has been carried out by the application of Article 18 in reverse. That Article provides for the formation of a new family name from the stem of the name of its type genus, but it is abundantly clear that the older authors did not by any means do this and the imposition of a "type-method" and modern rules on to a system where neither was actually applied leads often to a ludicrous position. For example, Jussieu (allowing for corrected spellings) included Verbena in Viticaceae, which is by Art. 18 typified by Vitex. Later he thought the name Viticaceae might be confused with Vitaceae (typified by Vitis) and so changed the name to Verbenaceae. Under Art. 18 Verbenaceaeis typified by Verbena; under any other relevant Article it is merely an illegitimate name-change and is typified by Vitex. I have, of course, adopted the former position under Art. 18 and proposed Verbenaceae for conservation. A somewhat different situation often arises when two groups have varied between family and infra-family rank in different classifications. Thus the taxon including Agave first appeared as an "infra" group of Haemodoraceae, but when Agavaceae was first validly published it included the earlier Haemodoraceae and was, therefore, illegitimate. In this and other cases I have proposed conservation of the illegitimate name from a later date and with a different circumscription (but the same type). My treatment of the alternative names of the conserved family names of Art. 18 follows the list of the 1952 Code except in the case of Guttiferae. Here the alternative must be Clusiaceae, not Hypericaceae, since the latter is very frequently regarded as a distinct family which could not then by any means be called Guttiferae. Clusiaceae was actually proposed as a suitable alternative name for Guttiferae by Lindley in 1836, and it requires conservation against the earlier (1832) Symphonia- ceae. Hypericaceae is the earliest of all these names, dating from 1789, but it did not include the Clusiaceae of Lindley. Some family names are proposed for conservation when it is clear that the 1 A similar situation exists in regard to "genus" and "species" in Necker's "Elementa Botanica", the generic names in which are applied to "species naturales", and species are referred to as "proles". 2 In his 'Familles' (1763) Adanson frequently used modern family names, but here the resemblance of his families to the modern concept ended. I have excluded also the names in Giseke's edition (1792) of his own and Fabricius' transcription of Linnaeus' Praelectiones in ordines naturales plantarum. Most of the names in that work are illegitimate, and the families (ordines naturales) are often extremely heterogeneous. - A. A. B. 2 This content downloaded from 69.74.186.251 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 13:59:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions rejected name will also be required in modern classifications. It must be emphasized that (except in the case of homonyms) rejected names are only to be rejected so long as they are regarded as synonyms of the conserved name. Myricaceae, when first described, included Myrica and Casuarina, the latter being the type of the earlier Casuarinaceae, which also included Myrica. Myricaceae, therefore, is illegitimate and may be retained only by conservation; since none will now regard Casuarina and Myrica as confamilial, Casuarinaceaealso may be retained. It is not claimed that all such cases have been worked out; still less is it claimed that this list is complete, or that the earliest publication of names always has been found. 1 A further licence I have taken concerns spelling. The rules enjoin that except in the eight specified exceptions family names end in -aceae; the rules do not specify that incorrect endings must be of Latin form to ensure valid publication and I have often accepted French, less often German, endings in order that the real authors of family names may receive whatever credit is due to them. One difficulty I have encountered is in finding family names published during the last fifty years. The absence of some of these from the list will be noted by botanists interested in the groups concerned. I should be grateful for any such additions and also for necessary corrections of spelling and bibliography, in order that the list may be presented at the Montreal (1959) Congress in as complete and accurate a state as is possible. It must be borne in mind that in preparing this list I have used Jussieu's Genera (1789) as a starting point. I have not found it necessary to establish the month of publication, but it seems reasonable to suggest that an arbitrary date such as 1st January would be convenient. Further, my reversal of Art. 18 (i.e. a family name derived from the stem of a generic name is to be typified by the genus to which that name applies)will need the sanction of an International Congress. Some few botanists consider that the insertion of Note 1 to Art. 18 was not authorized by the Paris (1954) Congress. I have, however, taken the view that since a similar note was authorized for Art. 19, it would be illogical to exclude the note from Art. 18. It should be noted that I do not regard any name in the present list as being here validly published.