Talk:Nolinoideae

where has all the use ful info gone? of course, if it was ever there... Botanists like to know about characteristics of the genus, normally not the history of it!

"and a whole lot more things that nobody could care about."

Well, I care... 62.113.159.156 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Streptopus
Dahlgren included Streptopus in the Convallariaceae. Does anyone know why it's currently listed on WP in the Liliaceae? --EncycloPetey 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kew World Checklist has it there: . Several genera formerly in the Convallariaceae didn't go to Ruscaceae and then Asparagaceae: Nolinoideae in the APG systems, based on molecular evidence (I think). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nolinoideae should be changed to Ruscoideae
Nolinoideae was the name used by APGIII on 2009, wich was a correct name according to the ICBN (Vienna Code) of 2005, since there the correct designation is based solely upon publication date. But, Melbourne Code (2011) introduced changes to that, and in Article 19.5 we can read:

"The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of a name listed in App. IIB (i.e. a name of a family conserved against all unlisted names, see Art. 14.5) is to be based on the generic name equivalent to that type (Art. 10.6), unless this is contrary to Art. 19.4 (see also Art. 19.8). If more than one such type is included, the correct name is determined by precedence in App. IIB of the corresponding family names."

Art 19.4 deals with family divisions including the type of the name of the family (Asparagus in this case), so does not apply here. Since Nolinoideae includes two types (Dracaena and Ruscus) of family names listed in Appendix IIB (Dracaenaceae and Ruscaceae, resp.), the correct subfamily name should be based on Ruscus or Dracaena, depending on which was published earlier: 1866 for Dracaenaceae, and 1840 for Ruscaceae. So, according to Melbourne Code, the correct name should be then Ruscoideae, which means that the article should be renamed accordingly. --Xavier (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be that reliable secondary sources will change the name. However, we can certainly not do so based on original research, which an interpretation of the Code would be! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)