Amaranthaceae

Phil Bunch pbunch at CTS.COM
Mon Jul 30 05:59:31 CDT 2001


How well accepted is this merger? This is a outside my main area of
interest and I see the general similarity but it is a little surprising. I
don't think I've ever mixed them up in the field.

Phil Bunch

On Monday, July 30, 2001 01:07, Abdulghafor Nawaz [SMTP:nawaz at KACST.EDU.SA]
wrote:
> Dear List members,
>
> Recently families Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae have been merged and
the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by Adanson,
Fam. Pl. 2: 266. Jul.-Aug. 1763 (Amaranthi).
>
> Long ago, in the year 1835, Burnett described the family Betaceae in
Outl. Bot.: 591, 1091, 1142. Jun. 1835. Burnett's concept of Betaceae
included both the present day Amaranthaceae s. str. and Chenopodiaceae.
>
> My question to the listmember, especially those interested in
nomenclature, is :
>
> Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising both
Amaranthaceae Adans. s. str.(1763) and Chenopodiaceae Vent. (1799).
>
> Thanks and appreciation for the anticipated replies.
>
>
> Abdul Ghafoor
> Scientific Research Specialist,
> NRERI, KACST,
> P.O.Box 6086,
> Riyadh-11442
> Saudi Arabia
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001




More information about the Taxacom mailing list