releech at telus.net
Sun Apr 12 22:05:44 CDT 2009
I do not believe that names above the family level have a
published date for priority. I believe it is usage, and who is
the present specialist using this or that ordinal name, that
sets the standards for use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Blanco" <mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu>
To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Euphorbiales/Malpighiales
> Probably because they use a recircumscribed order Malpighiales Jussieu
> (published in 1835). But you have a point; Euphorbiales Lindley was
> published earlier, in 1833, so Euphorbiales should have priority.
> There is a short note on priority of family names in the APG II paper
> (2003. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141, note on pages 415-416), but there is no
> mention of how they dealt with names of higher level taxa. They might
> have simply overlooked the name Euphorbiales. Or there could be some
> other explanation.
> michael.heads at yahoo.com wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> Why do some authors call the large order including Euphorbia
>> 'Malpighiales' instead of Euphorbiales, when Euphorbiaceae occur just
>> about everywhere and Malpighiaceae are much less common?
>> Michael Heads
>> Wellington, New Zealand.
>> My papers on biogeography are at the Buffalo Museum website:
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (188.8.131.520)
> Database version: 6.12160
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (184.108.40.2060)
Database version: 6.12160
More information about the Taxacom