Talk:Type genus

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tree of Life Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

We need a better example than Faba, which is now deprecated and refers to Vicia. ENeville (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several plant families whose names don't match their type genera's:

• Fabaceae: as mentioned above, the type genus is Vicia.
• Theaceae: Camellia
• Onagraceae: Oenothera
• Cactaceae: the genus Cactus was split in three, none of which is currently called Cactus
• Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera; named for the species L. caprifolium
• Aquifoliaceae: Ilex; named for I. aquifolium.

I also know of an example among animals:

• Elapidae: originally named for Elaps, but that was moved to another family and renamed Homoroselaps. phma (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]