Talk:Loganiaceae

Definitive list of genera
The final sentence of the lead says: "Recent DNA studies of the Gentianales have found strong support for the Loganiaceae (as defined here) as a clade containing 13 genera." Uncited, but looks like this refers to the American Journal of Botany paper cited in Excluded genera, that paper from 1999. The genera list in the Taxobox cites GRIN (with a now-broken URL), but that's here and has 25 genera. The GRIN family record says last updated Jan 2017 but no other reference given.

Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on which source for the genera list might be definitive. Thanks Declangi (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the GRIN list you linked above includes synonyms (e.g. click on Couthovia). I haven't checked them all, but I think it's the same 13.  See also APweb's list – APweb is often a good source of genus lists. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peter, you're correct on GRIN. I hadn't clicked through the genera on their list. Elsewhere in GRIN, I think I've seen synonyms appended with a second "=" line indicating the accepted name. Anyway, excluding synonyms, the lists in GRIN and the AJB paper do match with the same 13 genera. However the APweb list, which usefully indicates synonyms, has Labordia as a synonym of Geniostoma, making for 12 genera. The other entries match GRIN and AJB. Declangi (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * well, Gibbons et al. (2012) supports the synonymy of some species of Labordia with Geniostoma. APweb seems to have anticipated changes only suggested in this paper, because on the main page it says "For relationships in Loganieae, see Gibbons et al. (2012); generic limits will have to be adjusted." However, there's no more recent paper cited for the adjustment. So it seems that the best that can be said is that genera in Loganiaceae: Loganieae are currently uncertain. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * many thanks again. I've taken a look at the paper you supplied. As you say the genera list remains a little uncertain. I added your paper to the Genera section along with a couple of sentences indicating the uncertainty. Hopefully my additions have not confused matters. Declangi (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly the kind of comment that should be present in more articles. I see far too many taxon articles with unsourced or poorly sourced lists of subtaxa set out as though they were unchallengeable facts rather than taxonomic opinions. (Rant: Wikispecies and Wikidata compound this problem because they present one version of the taxonomic hierarchy without the scope for qualification that Wikipedia articles make possible, even if they don't always do it.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)