A number of years ago Julian Slade shared with us a proposal to split Scilla up. Many years later some of the changes have been accepted, but not all of them. This kind of thing makes keeping the wiki up to date very challenging. Then we had the proposal to combine a lot of genera into Ornithogalum (Albuca, Dipcadi, Galtonia, Neopatersonia, and Pseudogaltonia). That wasn't all accepted either. A new paper resurrected Albuca, Dipcadi, and Pseudogaltonia, but not Galtonia and Neopatersonia and took some of the former Ornithogalum species and moved them to Albuca. Now Pam Slate has shared a new paper from the Annals of Botany 107: 1–37, 2011 available online at http://www.aob.oxfordjournals.org/ Molecular phylogenetics of subfamily Ornithogaloideae (Hyacinthaceae) based on nuclear and plastid DNA regions, including a new taxonomic arrangement by Mario Martínez Azorín, Manuel B. Crespo, Ana Juan and Michael F. Fay This paper concludes: "On the basis of the phylogenetic analyses, 19 monophyletic genera are accepted within Ornithogaloideae: Albuca, Avonsera, Battandiera, Cathissa, Coilonox, Dipcadi, Eliokarmos, Elsiea, Ethesia, Galtonia, Honorius, Loncomelos, Melomphis, Neopatersonia, Nicipe, Ornithogalum, Pseudogaltonia, Stellarioides and Trimelopter. Each of these has a particular syndrome of morphological characters. As a result, 105 new combinations are made and two new names are proposed to accommodate the taxa studied in the new arrangement." Morphological characters are certainly easier for most of us, but it seems like some kind of middle ground between the lumpers and the splitters would be nice. All this constant changing of botanical names makes it harder to convince people that they should use them. It used to be that you could argue that using botanical names assured that you were all taking about the same thing. Now the common names last longer in many cases. Mary Sue