Talk:Coleonema

I'm a physician, not a botanist, but I believe I am correct in changing the family from Rhamnaceae to Rutaceae. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the correct classification of this genus, some respectable sources, including Wikipedia, giving Rhamnaceae, and others, including the RHS Dictionary of Gardening, giving Verbenaceae. However, most current authorities, including PlantSystematics.org, Encyclopaedia of Life and the four references cited in the article all give Rutaceae. Adawson13 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect taxonomy[edit]

The placement of this genus may be controversial but the family Rutaceae is in the order Sapindales, not order Rosales which this article has placed it in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.26.169 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly Referred to as Diosma?[edit]

Quoting AVH "There is no international convention governing the way common names can be written or used." In Australia pulchellum occurs as 99.999... of the genus. As the article states, it is incorrect to refer to the scientific name of the genus as Diosma, but feel free to refer to the common name of the genus as Diosma, or, if necessary, diosma (with a small d).--Lmstearn (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]