Thank you, I saw both and was confused.

Penguin,

I noticed that today when perusing miles2go's Sans offerings (2). Thanks for the citation.

WHAT!!! No one even checked with me, Has this been finalized yet? Do the same rules apply here in California.

O.M.G How can this be true.

Just kidding guys it's friday. :D

Greg

WHAT??? !!! ???

I was just getting used to having them in Ruscaceae. I only found out they had been moved to Dracenaceae a few months ago. I feel SO out of the loop.

I even drove past the conference when I was in CT last weekend. I begged the folks with me to go, but got out voted. See what happens when you're not around...

Michael

On a more serious note penguin, is there a reference for the article regarding the name change? I'd be interested in reading it.

Michael

Michael I'm with you on that one, out of the loop. Man this could be a problem we wouldn't even know the names of some plants if this kind of stuff continues, we would be known as " old school."

So where does that leave us ? LOL...

Greg

Michael,

If Wikipedia is to be believed, it's

Chase, M.W.; Reveal, J.L. & Fay, M.F. (2009), "A subfamilial classification for the expanded asparagalean families Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161 (2): 132-136, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00999.x

However, a quick perusal/search through that article finds that it talks about the need to abandon Ruscaceae, but it does not explicitly reference Dracaenaceae and the list of plants included in subfamily Nolinoideae does not include Sansevieria (contra Wikipedia). So... I'm not convinced this is it. :P The 10 minutes I can afford to spend searching this stuff right now doesn't turn up anything better, though.

Thank you Cliss.

I will try to review others also. The material (2010) I found still mentions Dracaenaceae and Ruscaceae, but places many things in subfamilial catagory for Ruscaceae, sensu lato, and leaves only Ruscus, Danae, and Semele in Ruscaceae, sensu stricto. Another tree places even MORE families in higher or core Asparagoids. None mention the sinking of Ruscus into Asparagaceae. Of course, are you a lumper or a splitter?

It all depends on what kind of trouble you get you little -aceae into...

Michael

I just read: Molecular phylogenetics of Ruscaceae sensu lato and related families (Asparagales) based on plastid and nuclear DNA sequences
Joo-Hwan Kim1,2,�, Dong-Kap Kim1,�, Felix Forest2, Michael F. Fay2 and Mark W. Chase2,*

I believe this article gently refutes the idea of all these families belong in Asparagaceae. There are two different "tree" systems utilized. One says to lump, one says no. Maximum parsimony has only 50% connection with Asparagus and related other taxa. The Bayesian tree connection is much higher, but loses percentages later in the tree. The article doesn't come out and say... "XYZ".. it just gives numbers. The decisions are left to the reader in this case.

The APG III (An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants [2009]) is trying to bring familial connections together, and rightly so. The wild splitting done in the 80's made for unrecognizable families and difficult teaching. I accept the change, for what it's worth. I believe the jury is still out on this one. I think it will not be the last time we see a change in family. People will accept it or not.

Sansevieria are still the same by any other name! ... and I still love them.

Michael

I think I understand now how these plants are called by different names by others, it all depends, are you speaking , B.C or A.D .

B.C - Before Cultivar name change and A.D - After Deciding to change name.

Greg

Hysterical Greg. As someone with a fair amount of taxonomic experience, it makes me ***CRAZY*** to see all of this happening. I am hoping that the changes will eventually get ironed out and settle down. The new genetic technology is wonderful, but it wreaks havoc old names.

Michael
NY Zone6

Personally, I'm deciding to ignore it altogether. From a hobbiest's perspective it matters not to me.

I've had it w/ the nomenclature wars (got particularly heated w/ Hoyas, so much so that societies split over it - yuck!)

Oh my gosh! That's insane. Yuck is right!

I follow it because It's something I enjoy. I lecture on various topics of horticulture pretty frequently and it's important to keep up. If someone contradicts something I mention, I don't even get flustered any more. It's just part of the game. You can't let it bother you so much that it bothers OTHER people.

Mike,
When it is all said and done. It will be an improvement to our hobby. When I was into Clivia and Hippeastrum and wanted to cross breed. The Great Lakes Bulb Society web site showed the family tree for all bulb plants. That was helpful to know to see who was related to who directly. I wish Sans. was done this way. Many spices would be grouped together as same. Right now they are at the base trunk. Love to see the finial results.

Don't like it when people stick to old names just because they dislike change, even if the old nomenclature makes no sense or is just confusing. But that is one HUGE family now... is it meaningful? Isn't a lot of this really just a dispute of how to define a family?

Meaningful? That's may be relative... It does make for one GIGANTIC family, indeed.

Getting these plants organized is a momentous task. In the simplest terms, they are related like monkeys are are related to apes. They are primates.

Some of the related plants in question have certain selected genes that are similar. They overlap. As you see the relations, it forms a pattern. A tree like structure can be drawn from associated plants and they form branches of related species. Some plants are very closely related and can be placed into one Genus, i.e. Sansevieria. Those outside, Dracaena, for example, are related, but have different enough genetics that distinguishes them from Sansevieria.

The definition becomes less arbitrary and more numerically based. The higher percentage of genes that correlate, the more closely the species in question are allied, whether as a family, genus, or individual species.

Creating a definition of Family to cover all species in question can develop into a war of words. That's where the International Code of Botanical Nomenculture comes in. It tries to create order from the general chaos. Mostly it succeeds. Sometimes there is considerable argument over change. I'm just glad I'm not the one in the middle of the argument. Historically, there have been some great fights at these meetings.

Been a while so I decided to kick up some dust,
"Dont hate the player Hate the game." Lol...

Come on everyone Cant we all just get along...

A plant is a plant, dont try an make something ata nothing and if you do can we at least use A.K.A ----- or Aliases?

Like previously known as---

Absolutely! No fighting.

Plant aliases. I love it. "I shall call him, Mini-tree."

I know someone that names each of her plants by the name of the person that gave her the plant. George. Cindy. Sharon.

Sharon, the plant formerly know as Hibiscus syriacus.

Makes sense to me... LOL

Bonsai, now that is what I call fun in the garden, let's just get over it. There's no need to start a riot just a garden.

I like that change there and actually I have a plant that I going to start calling Stush since he gave it to me , you won't mind that will you my friend ?

And let me see, I can see... Lol...

Greg

Yeah... The more I think about it the more I like it. "A little O bit of Jessica in my life... A little bit of ect, ect, ect...

Now I can see how they came up with the Rose of Sharon. Lol...

Come on Stush throw something up here buddy.

Greg

Greg,
I like the idea of calling plants names but what if I sent you two or three different kinds of plants. Ok Stush I, Stush II, so on. Like George Foreman's sons, all named George. Also that sans I sent you is fitting. Short and fat like me.
I was busy working. I am retired and some work is real tiring for me. One hour worked equals 2 days rest.

Stush, OMG I thought I answered this long time ago, I dont know what happen I guess it never was sent correctly or something.

But Stush one & two, three & four it's all good, Then we can go onto the Sans of Stush.

Hey I really like that one, "The Rose of Sharon."

And the Sans of Stush has a nice ring to it also and just think of different spieces as the new spieces develops.

Lets try this hijole Bantels LOL...

Wow, everyone take note; Sans of Stush. I like that better than SansStush. Good one Greg.