The recent merge of the family Alliaceae and Agapanthaceae into Amaryllidaceae (APGIII) is one that I actually agree with. For a long time, Alliaceae moved around from Liliaceae, to Amaryllidaceae, to Alliaceae, and now back Amaryllidaceae. The reason they moved around a lot was because they had characters that don't quite fit into any groups. What it currently means is that the family Amaryllidaceae is very large, with perhaps 1500 species (the genus Allium alone contained about 750 species). One of the reasons I like this merge is because these plants can be grown in similar ways. Most contain good and solid definitions of bulbs, and their floral morphologies are also similar. So Jane, you were most correct to not include Alliaceae in your book review. Nhu On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Jane McGary <janemcgary@earthlink.net> wrote: > I have been informed that there is no longer a family Alliaceae, and that > genera formerly in that split of the once-upon-a-time Liliaceae are now in > the Amaryllidaceae. Is this currently correct? > > Alliaceae made sense to me from the morphological viewpoint, but the > author of a book I reviewed online criticized me for thinking it had been > omitted from her list of families as a typographical error. >