Talk:Rubiaceae

Pentas lanceolata?

I see an image of a plant with four petalled pinkish flowers labled Pentas lanceolata in the article. But this page says Pentas lanceolata is five petalled and 'Pentas' in the name justifies just that. Most probably this is Ixora coccinea. I am not an expert at this, so somebody please confirm and make the correction. The image name might also needs to be changed in the commons. ~ srini 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Really it is an Ixora species. Genus Ixora has flowers with four corolla lobes, rarely five.Besides Pentas has the valvate aestivation while Ixora has the convolute aestivation like on picture.Berton 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The two users above are clearly correct about the misidentification of the photograph. I believe that it is high time to make corrections. 72.130.245.132 (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo in question is File:Egyptian starcluster-KayEss-1.jpeg. I've gone ahead and removed it from this page. If someone wants it back, I wouldn't object to that (with correct identification), but ideally the images would illustrate specific points rather than being a grab-bag which are just sitting in a gallery (see MOS:IMAGES). Kingdon (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

It's my impression that the article says that the genus Astragalus is in the Rubiaceae family, but instead it is in Fabaceae the pea and bean family. Can someone take a look at this?

WriterHound (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The two bigger genera are prefised by the vernacular names of the family they belong to, hence 'legume' and 'orchid'. It seemed obvious to me that their non-membership of rubiaceae was implied (?) If not I guess we can reword. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Omit exact species count

I reverted the edits that changed "more than 13,000 species" to "more than 13,443 species" along with the reference, which does not directly state any number of species. Even if it is possible use that reference to generate a species list and count them manually, there is no reason to believe that the count is complete and contains no duplicates and no subspecies, varieties, forms, and cultivars, especially ones that this database may call species but other authorities may consider duplicate names or subspecies, varieties, forms or cultivars. Also, the definition of species is fuzzy, especially among plants, which can often hybridize within and across genera, so when the species count is over 13,000, exact species numbers are likely to be a matter of opinion, and Wikipedia should use words like "more than" with a round number, rather than an exact number, unless there is strong reason to believe that a species count is complete and contains no duplicates and no entities of taxonomic rank lower than species. Also, there was an improper space before <ref>. Anomalocaris (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually ref #2 does give an exact number. But I agree that 'more than' is correct for the lead. Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

"On the other hand, 211 genera are monotypic; together they account for more than a third of all genera in the Rubiaceae, but fewer than 1% of all species" --- err, 211 species is more than 1% of 13,000 species ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dialypetalanthoideae

I think it's long past time to create this page, even if it's just a (temporary?) hard or soft redirect to the current Ixoroideae page. Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I'm not really active here... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Major issue with Systematics section.

For a long time, the classification with three subfamilies (Cinchonoideae, Ixoroideae, and Rubioideae) was followed. However, an alternative opinion existed with only two subfamilies: an expanded Cinchonoideae (that includes Ixoroideae, Coptosapelteae, and Luculieae) and Rubioideae. Finally, more and more evidence pointed towards a two-family classification. The adoption of the Melbourne Code for botanical nomenclature had an unexpected impact on many names that have been long in use and are well-established in literature. According to the Melbourne Code, the subfamilial name Ixoroideae had to be replaced by Dialypetalanthoideae. This means that the two subfamilies in Rubiaceae now are: Dialypetalanthoideae and Rubioideae.

Emphasis added by me.

There are three ways you can reduce a family from three subfamilies to two:

1. Dissolve one subfamilly and reallocate its taxa to other groups.
2. Extract one subfamily and elevate it to the rank of a new family.
3. Pretend one subfamily and all of its tribes, genera and species don't exist.

Guess which approach is exhibited by Systematics as it currently stands. ~2026-11614-51 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A reduction from three subfamilies to two does not require any of the three options listed. In botanical classification, subfamilies can simply be merged if they are no longer considered distinct. In that case, the taxa concerned are retained but placed within a broader subfamily, and the correct name is determined by priority under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. No taxa are ignored or treated as non-existent; only their rank and circumscription change. Orbicule (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Request to dumb down the article ... really???

This article was tagged with a box stating, in essence, that it was too technical and should be rewritten so that "non-experts" could read it. I did not write the article, and only came to it today, but although i have no degree in botany, i understood it perfectly. I resist and object to the mandated dumbing down of botanical and zoological articles in Wikipedia. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)