Talk:Sterculioideae

Merger proposal

I propose that Sterculiaceae be merged into Sterculioideae as they are discussing the same group of plants and a single article documenting the history and characteristics would be better than two. Question is, should the name be at the family or subfamily name...leaning to the latter as the current level of classification...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the three articles Sterculiaceae, Bombacaceae, and Tiliaceae should be merged into the respective subfamily articles. There does not seem to be any disagreement with the results of the APG work.--Kev min § 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sterculiacaeae sensu Cronquist ends up as Sterculioideae, Dombeyoideae, Bytternioideae and half of Helicterioideae, Tiliaceae as Tilioideae, Brownlowioideae and Grewioideae (aka Sparmannioideae), and Bombacaceae as Bombacoideae and half of Helicteroideae, with various genera shuffled around to make things more complex. The families and subfamilies are not essentially the same taxa at different ranks. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the matter of disagreement with the APG, the new edition of Heywood chops the Malvaceae sensu APG into (IIRC) 12 families, and there have been other proposals. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should keep them separate though or trace the evolution of the term (broad/narrow) on a single page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this book they use the term Sterculiaceae again, but align it with the subfamily (but I can't see the relevant segments in the book). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who does Heywood cite for this , or is this his own research, making it a primary source? 166.137.136.23 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (cell phone, feel free to move, I can't)[reply]

Yes, that's the new edition of Heywood, which chops Malvaceae sensu APG into about 12 families, including a narrow Sterculiaceae (and Helicteroideae becomes Helictereaceae and Durionaceae, and I think that Byttnerioideae is chopped into several families). That classification hasn't garnered much traction. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that book is the result of some consensus-type work? I guess the idea is to look around at the herbaria. In Australia all take the broad view of Malvaceae, except Queensland, which takes a narrower one (plus Sterculiaceae)...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering two points - Heywood (et al) is a primary source for the classification used therein. Multiple authors contributed to the book, but as I haven't seen it myself I can't give much detail. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Heywood as a primary source is well-supported by other literature (through citations) then the information could be added, but if it is a single source, then it is not appropriate for taxonomies at the level of a general encyclooedia, and discussions of it should come from authors who cite and discuss it. 166.137.118.23 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lavateraguy - I guess my way of thinking has an analogy in birds - see Pelecaniformes (which needs to be cleaned up) - it classically comprised pelicans, frigatebirds, cormorants, darters and gannets/boobies. Then all bar pelicans have been moved to suliformes, and then shoebill stork, hamerkop and (in some classifications) herons and ibises moved into the order. So one article tracks the wildly fluctuating membership of the order and might be easier for longitudinal overview. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]