BULLETIN 
OF THE 
~ TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB 
Vol. 22. Lancaster, Pai Sintacs 15, 1895. No. 1. 
Family Nomenclature, i 
By JoHN HENDLEY BARNHART. 
Although for over a hundred years botanists have recognized 
certain natural groups of plants, variously called “orders” or 
“families,” the naming of these groups has been full of incon- 
sistencies, and subject entirely to the caprice of each writer. 
When we come to consider the fact that no author has ever con- 
sistently followed any rule in naming such groups (some have 
even called the same family by two or more different names in 
the same work) it seems strange that the present confusion is 
no greater than it is. 
In spite of the fact that there are no rules, there is a marked 
tendency toward the use of uniform terminations in the naming of 
all groups of codrdinate rank higher than genera. In the case of 
family names this tendency has shown itself by the extension of 
the use of the termination ‘“-aceae,” until this has become uni- 
versally recognized as a distinctive mark of family rank. Yet 
some of the usual names are improperly formed from the generic 
root upon which they are based, while quite a number of the 
families retain names which aresnot founded upon genera at all. 
This latter class requires special consideration. A generic 
name stands or falls with its typical species, and why should not a 
family name stand or fall with its typical genus? Such names as 
Umbelliferae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Labiatae, Gramineae, Com- 
_ positae, etc., are not named after genera. Nor do these names 
