Talk:Lomandraceae

Alternatively? APG has not a position in this case? Is it possible? Berton 18:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APG allows optional alternative circumscriptions for certain groups. In the case of Asparagaceae and allied families, APG favors a broad circumscription of Asparagaceae but allows for an optional narrower circumscription by segregating several families as monophyletic groups: Agavaceae, Aphyllanthaceae, Hesperocallidaceae, Hyacinthaceae, Laxmanniaceae, Ruscaceae, and Themidaceae. Most references I have seen seem to favor the narrower recognition of these families rather than lumping them into the broadly circumscribed Asparagaceae favored by the APG; in fact some seem to split them even more and I suspect this is one group for which the APG arrangement is going to find little acceptance. I'm assuming APG accepts Laxmanniaceae over Lomandraceae (when the two families are combined, as they are in the APG system) due to priority of publication, but haven't had a chance to check. I also don't know which genera should go into which families if Laxmanniaceae and Lomandraceae are treated as separate families. MrDarwin 20:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! Berton 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In APG's site of Missouri Bot. Garden:"Some information is taken from ... Conran (1998, as Lomandraceae)." and 14-15 genera/178 species correspond almost exactly to ref. Conran as Lomandraceae. The 15th genus is probably Baxteria.

Now, with regard to the publication dates:Laxmanniaceae Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 4: 111. 1901-1902 and Lomandraceae Lotsy, Vortr. Bot. Stammesgesch. 3: 761. Sep-Oct 1911. Berton 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

This article had the same content, apart from one sentence, as the article for the synonym Laxmanniaceae. I've copied over the extra sentence and made this article a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]