Taxonomic Swap 14818
(Committed on 2016-04-26)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Yes, the references could include TPL
http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/A/Amaranthaceae/
and the paper of the molecular evidence published in 2003
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249158601_Phylogeny_of_Amaranthaceae_and_Chenopodiaceae_and_the_Evolution_of_C_4_Photosynthesis
and the latest update of APG IV
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/boj.12385/abstract
where the Caryophyllales are treated thus
Caryophyllales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl
280 [283]. Frankeniaceae Desv., nom. cons.
281 [284]. Tamaricaceae Link, nom. cons.
282 [285]. Plumbaginaceae Juss., nom. cons.
283 [286]. Polygonaceae Juss., nom. cons.
284 [287]. Droseraceae Salisb., nom. cons.
285 [288]. Nepenthaceae Dumort, nom. cons.
286 [289]. Drosophyllaceae Chrtek et al .
287 [290]. Dioncophyllaceae Airy Shaw, nom. cons.
288 [291]. Ancistrocladaceae Planch. ex Walp., nom. cons.
289 [292]. Rhabdodendraceae Prance
290 [293]. Simmondsiaceae Tiegh.
291 [294]. Physenaceae Takht.
292 [295]. Asteropeiaceae Takht. ex Reveal & Hoogland
293 [—]. *Macarthuriaceae Christenh.
294 [—]. *Microteaceae Sch€aferhoff & Borsch
295 [296]. Caryophyllaceae Juss., nom. cons.
296 [297]. Achatocarpaceae Heimerl, nom. cons.
297 [298]. Amaranthaceae Juss., nom. cons.
298 [299]. Stegnospermataceae Nakai
299 [300]. *Limeaceae Shipunov ex Reveal
300 [301]. Lophiocarpaceae Doweld & Reveal
301 [—]. *Kewaceae Christenh.
302 [302]. Barbeuiaceae Nakai
303 [303]. Gisekiaceae Nakai
304 [304]. Aizoaceae Martinov, nom. cons.
305 [305]. *Phytolaccaceae R.Br., nom. cons.
306 [—]. *Petiveriaceae C.Agardh (including Rivinaceae
C.Agardh)
307 [306]. Sarcobataceae Behnke
308 [307]. Nyctaginaceae Juss., nom. cons.
309 [308]. *Molluginaceae Bartl., nom. cons.
310 [309]. Montiaceae Raf.
311 [310]. Didiereaceae Radlk., nom. cons.
312 [311]. Basellaceae Raf., nom. cons.
313 [312]. Halophytaceae S.Soriano
314 [313]. Talinaceae Doweld
315 [314]. Portulacaceae Juss., nom. cons.
316 [315]. Anacampserotaceae Eggli & Nyffeler
317 [316]. Cactaceae Juss., nom. cons.
Unfortunately, I did make a mistake as the Chenopodiaceae should be included in a wider Amaranthaceae and I am unsure how to do this successfully.
If someone knows how to fix it I would be grateful.
I think you did it correctly, but there was some kind of bug in which all the children of Chenopodiaceae didn't get moved over to Amaranthaceae. I'm looking into that.
Do you know if everything in Chenopodiaceae is now in the subfamily Chenopodioideae?
No, it is not the case.
Stevens gives (incomplete list) http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/welcome.html
Chenopodioideae Burnett
(Cuticle waxes 0); pericarp usu. thin, evascularized; testa tanniniferous, exotesta much enlarged, with tannin stalactites (0); x = (8) 9.
10/500: Atriplex (300), Chenopodium (150), Dysphania (40).
This article gives more details but I am not sure how accurate it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranthaceae and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenopodioideae
Ok, I moved all the former children of Chenopodiaceae over to Amaranthaceae, so I think that should fix everything. Let me know if you're still seeing any problems.
Thank you very much for sorting this out.
@martinbishop, while I think this change is in accordance with our policies since the majority of the authorities we follow use this treatment, please remember to cite your sources. In this case, I would have listed The Plant List as a source, and further provided links in the description to the various authories they follow and how they treat this change, e.g. Calflora continues to use Chenopodiaceae, but TPL, GoBotany, and New Zealand Plants all consider it synonymous with Amaranthaceae. This is a pretty big change that has affected a lot of people, so it's important to provide as much clarity as possible so people can see what happened and why.