ContentS:
Why Botanical Classification Changes
Key Drivers of Reclassification
Impact of Botanical Name Changes
Modern Tools Driving Taxonomic Updates
Reliable Taxonomic Databases
Overview of Recent Reclassifications
Thaumatophyllum: The Reclassification of Tree-Like Philodendrons
Calathea reclassified to Goeppertia
Sansevieria Reclassified as Dracaena
Schefflera Reclassified as Heptapleurum
Reclassification of Polypodium Species into Various Genera
Reclassification of Aloe: New Genera for Tree, Climbing, and Fan Aloes
Why And How These Reclassifications Matter for Houseplant Enthusiasts
References and Further Reading
1. Introduction: Why Do Plant Names MATTER?
Plant names matter. They shape how we communicate about plants, search for care tips, and decide which species to buy. Yet, botanical names are not fixed—they evolve as scientific discoveries reshape our understanding of plant relationships.
You may have noticed (or not) that familiar houseplants have new names:
Calathea orbifolia is now Goeppertia orbifolia
Sansevieria trifasciata is now Dracaena trifasciata
Tree-like Philodendrons have moved to the Thaumatophyllum genus
Certain Aloe species have been reassigned to new genera such as Aloidendron, Aloiampelos, and Kumara
These are not arbitrary name changes—they reflect cutting-edge research in plant genetics and evolutionary history. Advances in molecular phylogenetics have allowed scientists to map out plant family trees with greater accuracy, revealing that many species once grouped together are not as closely related as previously thought.
This guide will explore the most significant reclassifications, including:
✔ Thaumatophyllum (formerly part of Philodendron)
✔ Goeppertia (species moved from Calathea)
✔ Dracaena (now including Sansevieria)
✔ Heptapleurum (separating from Schefflera)
✔ Polypodium species moving into new genera
✔ New Aloe Genera (Aloidendron, Aloiampelos, Kumara, Gonialoe)
Beyond scientific explanations, we’ll also address practical concerns—how these changes affect plant care, plant shopping, and community discussions. You’ll find references to real academic studies, expert insights, and clear guidance on navigating these updates.
By the end, you’ll feel confident deciphering plant labels and understanding the deeper evolutionary connections behind these botanical reclassifications.
Why Botanical Classification Changes
For centuries, plants were classified based on observable characteristics such as leaf shape, growth habit, and flower structure. However, advances in DNA sequencing and molecular phylogenetics have transformed taxonomy, revealing that morphologically similar plants may not always be closely related, while some visually distinct species share a common ancestor.
Studies using chloroplast DNA sequencing and phylogenetic trees have shown that traditional classifications were often artificial groupings, leading to significant taxonomic updates. These changes ensure that plant families and genera reflect true evolutionary relationships, improving accuracy in both scientific and horticultural contexts.
Key Drivers of Reclassification
Genetic Evidence
DNA sequencing has demonstrated that some plant groups once classified together do not share a single common ancestor, requiring reclassification.
Phylogenetic Analysis
Scientists use genetic markers to map evolutionary relationships, refining plant family trees.
Large-Scale Studies
Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) allow researchers to analyze entire plant families or orders, often leading to name changes.
Impact of Botanical Name Changes
Retail and Gardening
Nurseries often retain traditional names for familiarity, leading to discrepancies between scientific and commercial labeling.
Academic and Collector Circles
Research institutions and plant societies update references quickly, making it important for enthusiasts to stay informed.
Plant Care Adjustments
In some cases, reclassifications hint at differences in care requirements, disease susceptibility, or growth habits.
While name changes can be frustrating, they ultimately improve scientific accuracy and offer a clearer understanding of plant evolution.
Modern Tools Driving Taxonomic Updates
Botanical classifications are evolving faster than ever due to breakthroughs in genetic technology, collaborative databases, and international research efforts.
Key Technologies Transforming Plant Taxonomy:
Chloroplast DNA Sequencing
Tracks genetic mutations at a predictable rate, revealing evolutionary timelines.
Microsatellites & Nuclear DNA Analysis
Provide additional layers of information on species relationships.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Enables large-scale comparisons across species, families, or entire plant orders, increasing accuracy.
Reliable Taxonomic Databases:
Up-to-date classifications can be found in:
How Information Spreads:
Research findings are published in peer-reviewed journals.
Authoritative databases update plant names and classifications.
Horticulturalists and plant communities gradually adopt the changes at varying speeds.
These advancements have accelerated taxonomic updates, leading to a more accurate and scientifically grounded understanding of plant evolution. While some changes take time to be widely accepted, they reflect real genetic relationships and help create a more stable, logical system of classification for both researchers and plant enthusiasts.
Overview of Recent Reclassifications
Botanical reclassifications have reshaped plant taxonomy in recent years, affecting many well-known houseplants and garden species. These updates, driven by genetic research and phylogenetic analysis, have led to the creation of new genera, the merging of others, and the reassigning of species to better reflect their evolutionary relationships. Below is a summary of the most significant reclassifications and their implications.
Thaumatophyllum: The Reclassification of Tree-Like Philodendrons
In 2018, botanists Cassia Mônica Sakuragui, Luana Silva Braucks Calazans, and Simon Joseph Mayo reclassified certain large, self-supporting species from the genus Philodendron into a separate genus, Thaumatophyllum, reviving a classification originally proposed in 1859 by Heinrich Wilhelm Schott. This decision was based on molecular, morphological, and cytological studies, which confirmed that these species form a distinct genetic group, separate from vining and climbing Philodendron species.
The reclassification aimed to correct historical taxonomic inconsistencies by reinstating Thaumatophyllum as a valid genus. DNA sequencing revealed that these tree-like aroids differ significantly from true Philodendron species, warranting a separate classification. The genus Thaumatophyllum was originally described over 160 years ago, but it was later merged into Philodendron before recent studies reinstated it.
Why Was This Change Made?
Genetic Evidence – DNA sequencing confirmed that these species are not closely related to true Philodendron species.
Distinct Growth Habit – Unlike vining Philodendron, Thaumatophyllum develops thick, woody stems and grows upright like small trees.
Scientific Accuracy – Restoring Thaumatophyllum aligns with historical classifications and genetic research.
Key Species Now Classified Under Thaumatophyllum
These former Philodendron species are now officially part of Thaumatophyllum:
Thaumatophyllum bipinnatifidum – (Philodendron bipinnatifidum / Philodendron selloum), also called Split-Leaf Philodendron or Lacy Tree Philodendron.
Thaumatophyllum xanadu – (Philodendron xanadu), a compact species with deeply lobed leaves, popular in home decor.
Thaumatophyllum adamantinum – (Philodendron adamantinum), a Brazilian species with a striking leaf shape.
Thaumatophyllum corcovadense – (Philodendron corcovadense), native to Brazil, known for its ornamental foliage.
Thaumatophyllum speciosum – (Philodendron speciosum), featuring large, ornate leaves.
Thaumatophyllum spruceanum – Originally classified under Thaumatophyllum in 1859, later moved to Philodendron, and now reinstated.
Thaumatophyllum stenolobum – (Philodendron stenolobum), with distinctive narrow-lobed leaves.
Thaumatophyllum williamsii – (Philodendron williamsii), known for its unique leaf morphology.
Thaumatophyllum saxicola – (Philodendron saxicola), adapted to rocky environments.
Thaumatophyllum undulatum – (Philodendron undulatum), characterized by wavy leaf margins.
What This Means for Plant Enthusiast:
Label Updates – Many nurseries still use the old Philodendron names, but botanical references now list them under Thaumatophyllum.
Same Care, New Name – Despite the reclassification, their care remains unchanged: bright, indirect light, well-draining soil, and occasional fertilizing.
Better Scientific Understanding – This change helps clarify the evolutionary relationships between different aroids, making plant taxonomy more accurate.
While these name updates may take time to be widely recognized, they enhance botanical accuracy and provide plant lovers with a deeper understanding of aroid diversity.
In 2012, botanists Finn Borchsenius, Luz Stella Suárez, and Linda M. Prince conducted a molecular phylogenetic study that led to the reclassification of many species from the genus Calathea into Goeppertia. This decision was based on genetic evidence showing that these species form a distinct evolutionary group separate from the true Calathea species.
Previously, Calathea was considered a large genus, but DNA studies confirmed that most species actually belong under Goeppertia, leaving only a small number of true Calathea species.
Why Was This Change Made?
Genetic Evidence – DNA sequencing revealed that most species traditionally classified as Calathea were more closely related to Goeppertia.
Evolutionary Relationships – This reclassification helps clarify how these plants evolved and their genetic distinctions.
Taxonomic Accuracy – The update ensures that scientific naming reflects the most accurate botanical classifications.
Key Species Reclassified to Goeppertia
Many well-known houseplants that were once called Calathea now belong to Goeppertia, including:
Goeppertia picturata (Calathea picturata) – Known for its silver-patterned leaves.
Goeppertia roseopicta (Calathea roseopicta) – Features rose-painted leaf patterns.
Goeppertia ornata (Calathea ornata) – Recognized for its pinstriped foliage.
Goeppertia makoyana (Calathea makoyana) – The well-known peacock plant.
Goeppertia warszewiczii (Calathea warszewiczii) – Noted for its velvety dark green leaves.
Goeppertia orbifolia (Calathea orbifolia) – Large, round leaves with silver stripes.
Goeppertia lancifolia (Calathea lancifolia) – The rattlesnake plant.
Goeppertia veitchiana (Calathea veitchiana) – Ornate, colorful foliage.
Goeppertia burle-marxii (Calathea burle-marxii) – Named after Roberto Burle Marx.
Goeppertia insignis (Calathea insignis) – Recognized for elongated leaves with bold markings.
Which Species Remain in Calathea?
Despite these changes, some species (around 60) still belong to Calathea, including:
Calathea crotalifera – Recognized by its rattlesnake-like flower structures.
Calathea lutea – Known as Cuban Cigar, featuring large paddle-shaped leaves.
Calathea lasiostachya – Distinguished by unique floral structures.
Calathea grandifolia – Broad, lush green leaves.
Calathea gigantea – A rare species with massive leaves.
Implications for Plant Enthusiasts:
Labeling Confusion – Many nurseries still use Calathea names for species now classified as Goeppertia. Some use Goeppertia, and those, who don't know about the change, may be confused.
Same Care, New Name – The reclassification does not change plant care—these species still require high humidity, indirect light, and well-draining soil.
Botanical Accuracy – Understanding these changes helps clarify plant relationships and ensures correct naming in scientific and horticultural contexts.
Although it may take time for plant nurseries and retailers to fully transition to the correct names, these updates improve taxonomic accuracy and provide a deeper understanding of Marantaceae plants.
In 2014, botanists Pei-Luen Lu and Clifford W. Morden conducted a molecular phylogenetic study that revealed Sansevieria species are genetically embedded within the Dracaena lineage. Their findings, published in Systematic Botany, provided clear DNA evidence that Sansevieria is not a distinct genus but rather a subgroup within Dracaena.
Building on this research, Ratidzayi Takawira-Nyenya and Paul I. Forster further refined the classification in 2021, publishing updated nomenclature and taxonomic adjustments in Dracaena. Their work confirmed that all Sansevieria species should officially be placed under Dracaena, aligning botanical classification with evolutionary history.
Why Was This Change Made?
Genetic Evidence – DNA sequencing confirmed that Sansevieria species are closely related to Dracaena and do not form a separate evolutionary group.
Taxonomic Accuracy – This revision ensures that plant classification reflects true evolutionary relationships rather than superficial similarities.
Scientific Consistency – Merging Sansevieria with Dracaena follows the botanical principle of priority, where the older genus name (Dracaena) is retained.
Key Species Affected by the Reclassification
Many popular Sansevieria species are now classified as Dracaena, including:
Dracaena trifasciata (Sansevieria trifasciata) – The well-known Snake Plant or Mother-in-Law’s Tongue.
Dracaena angolensis (Sansevieria cylindrica) – Known as African Spear Plant, with tall, cylindrical leaves.
Dracaena hanningtonii (Sansevieria ehrenbergii) – A robust species with thick, sword-like foliage.
Dracaena masoniana (Sansevieria masoniana) – Commonly called Whale Fin due to its wide, paddle-shaped leaves.
Dracaena pearsonii (Sansevieria pearsonii) – Features stiff, upright, cylindrical leaves.
Dracaena pethera (Sansevieria kirkii) – Recognized for its rippled, variegated leaf texture.
Dracaena bacularis (Sansevieria bacularis) – A narrow-leaved variety, similar to D. angolensis.
Dracaena aubrytiana (Sansevieria aubrytiana) – A rare, striking species with vertical leaf growth.
Dracaena fischeri (Sansevieria fischeri) – Compact and slow-growing, with upright leaves.
Dracaena canaliculata (Sansevieria canaliculata) – Features deep grooves along its narrow leaves.
What This Means for Plant OwnerS:
Label Confusion – Many nurseries still sell these plants as Sansevieria, even though their official classification is now Dracaena.
Same Plant, New Name – The reclassification does not change their care requirements; they still thrive in low light, require minimal watering, and prefer well-draining soil.
Better Botanical Understanding – This update aligns taxonomy with scientific research, helping plant enthusiasts use the correct names.
While Sansevieria may still be used informally, its reclassification under Dracaena reflects a more accurate and scientifically validated understanding of these plants.
In 2020, botanists Porter P. Lowry II and Gregory M. Plunkett conducted a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study that led to the reclassification of many species formerly placed in Schefflera into the genus Heptapleurum. Their research confirmed that Schefflera was a polyphyletic group, meaning it contained species that were not closely related. To improve taxonomic accuracy, many species—particularly those from Asia and the Pacific—were reassigned to Heptapleurum, a genus originally established in the 19th century but later merged into Schefflera.
Other species, particularly those from the Neotropics, were reclassified into additional genera such as Didymopanax. Only a handful of species—mainly from New Zealand and some Pacific islands—remain in Schefflera.
Why Was This Change Made?
Genetic Evidence – DNA sequencing showed that Schefflera included multiple evolutionary lineages, requiring a split into separate genera.
Taxonomic Accuracy – The reclassification ensures that species names reflect true evolutionary relationships rather than superficial similarities.
Scientific Consistency – Restoring Heptapleurum and other genera aligns with the principles of botanical nomenclature, preventing unrelated species from being grouped together.
Key Species Reclassified to Heptapleurum
Many well-known Schefflera species are now classified under Heptapleurum, including:
Heptapleurum arboricola (Schefflera arboricola) – Also known as the Dwarf Umbrella Tree, a popular houseplant with compact growth and variegated varieties.
Heptapleurum actinophyllum (Schefflera actinophylla) – Formerly known as the Australian Umbrella Tree or Octopus Tree, featuring large, glossy green leaves.
Heptapleurum ellipticum (Schefflera elliptica) – A climbing species with umbrella-like leaf arrangements.
Heptapleurum fantsipanense (Schefflera fantsipanensis) – A recently reclassified species native to Vietnam.
Heptapleurum hypoleucum (Schefflera hypoleuca) – Recognized for its pale leaf undersides.
Heptapleurum taiwanianum (Schefflera taiwaniana) – A species native to Taiwan, popular in cool-climate gardens.
Heptapleurum venulosum (Schefflera venulosa) – Found in India and Southeast Asia.
Other Reclassified Species in Different Genera
In addition to Heptapleurum, some species were moved to other genera, including:
Didymopanax morototoni (Schefflera morototoni) – A Neotropical tree now classified in Didymopanax.
Astrotricha species – Some former Schefflera species from Australia were transferred to Astrotricha.
Which Species Remain in Schefflera?
Following these reclassifications, the genus Schefflera now consists of a small number of species primarily found in New Zealand and some Pacific islands. These include:
Schefflera digitata – Also known as Patē, native to New Zealand.
Schefflera balansana – Found in New Caledonia.
Schefflera candelabrum – A species from New Caledonia.
Schefflera samoensis – Native to Samoa.
What This Means for Plant Owners
Label Changes & Potential Confusion – Many plant retailers still use the old Schefflera names, while others have adopted the updated classifications. If you see Heptapleurum arboricola or Heptapleurum actinophyllum in a nursery, it is the same plant that was previously labeled Schefflera arboricola or Schefflera actinophylla. Those unfamiliar with the reclassification may find the new names confusing at first.
Same Plant, New Name – The reclassification does not change how these plants are grown. They still require indirect light, moderate watering, and well-draining soil, regardless of their updated genus.
More Accurate Taxonomy – Learning about these name updates ensures that plant lovers can recognize both old and new names, helping them navigate plant nurseries, care guides, and botanical references with confidence.
While Schefflera remains the more familiar name, its reclassification into Heptapleurum and other genera reflects a more precise and scientifically validated understanding of these plants.
Reclassification of Polypodium Species into Various Genera:
The genus Polypodium, historically used to classify a broad range of ferns, has undergone significant taxonomic revisions over the past decade. Genetic research has revealed that many species traditionally placed in Polypodium are more accurately classified within other genera. As a result, taxonomists have reassigned numerous species to better reflect their evolutionary relationships.
The most influential studies leading to these changes were conducted by Carl J. Rothfels et al. in 2012 and the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group (PPG I) in 2016. Their molecular phylogenetic research provided DNA-based evidence that Polypodium was polyphyletic—meaning it contained unrelated species that needed to be reassigned into separate genera. These studies, published in Taxon, helped establish a more accurate classification system for ferns in the Polypodiaceae family.
Why Was This Change Made?
Genetic Evidence – DNA sequencing confirmed that species previously classified as Polypodium do not share a single common ancestor and should be placed in distinct genera.
Taxonomic Accuracy – The revision ensures that scientific classification reflects true evolutionary history rather than relying on superficial similarities.
Scientific Standardization – By redistributing species into appropriate genera, botanists clarified relationships among these ferns, making classification more stable and scientifically valid.
Key Species Reclassified from Polypodium
Many species once classified as Polypodium have now been reassigned to different genera, including:
Phlebodium aureum (Polypodium aureum) – Commonly known as golden polypody or blue-star fern, now in Phlebodium.
Serpocaulon lasiopus (Polypodium argyrolepis) – Reclassified into Serpocaulon, known for its creeping rhizomes.
Serpocaulon eleutherophlebium (Polypodium mindense) – Moved to Serpocaulon due to unique morphological traits.
Pleopeltis murora (Polypodium mixtum) – Now placed in Pleopeltis, a genus characterized by its scaly leaves.
Moranopteris achilleifolia (Polypodium piligerum) – Transferred to Moranopteris, a genus of delicate ferns.
Hypolepis punctata (Polypodium punctatum) – Now part of Hypolepis, recognized for its finely divided fronds.
Pecluma dulcis (Polypodium quitense) – Moved to Pecluma, a genus known for its slender fronds.
Serpocaulon sessilifolium (Polypodium rimbachii) – Transferred to Serpocaulon, characterized by its sessile leaves.
Serpocaulon fraxinifolium (Polypodium scutulatum) – A fern with ash-like foliage, now in Serpocaulon.
Zealandia pustulata (Polypodium pustulatum) – Reclassified into Zealandia, a newly established genus for certain New Zealand native ferns.
Species Remaining in Polypodium
Despite these reclassifications, some species continue to belong to Polypodium. These species share a distinct genetic lineage that sets them apart from the genera listed above:
Polypodium vulgare – The common polypody, widespread across temperate regions.
Polypodium glycyrrhiza – The licorice fern, native to North America.
Polypodium scouleri – Also known as Scouler’s polypody, found along the Pacific coast.
Polypodium californicum – The California polypody, endemic to California and northern Mexico.
Polypodium amorphum – Known as the irregular polypody, native to western North America.
What This Means for Plant Enthusiasts
Potential Confusion in Nurseries – Many plant retailers and gardening guides still use the older Polypodium names. If you see a label for Phlebodium aureum or Serpocaulon lasiopus, it refers to plants that were once classified as Polypodium. This change may cause confusion for those unaware of the reclassification.
Same Plant, New Name – While the genus name has changed, the plant’s characteristics and care requirements remain the same. These ferns still thrive in humid environments, require indirect light, and prefer well-draining, organic-rich soil.
Better Scientific Understanding – Learning about these updates allows plant lovers to recognize both old and new names, making it easier to navigate plant databases, care guides, and botanical references.
Although Polypodium is still widely used in informal settings, the updated classifications provide a scientifically accurate representation of the relationships between these ferns, ensuring greater taxonomic consistency for future research and horticultural practices.
The Reclassification of Aloe: New Genera for Tree, Climbing, and Fan Aloes
In 2013, botanists Olwen M. Grace, Ronell R. Klopper, and Gideon F. Smith conducted a comprehensive taxonomic study that led to significant revisions within the genus Aloe. Their research, published in Phytotaxa, revealed that Aloe, as traditionally defined, was polyphyletic—comprising species from multiple evolutionary lineages. To address this, they proposed a narrower definition for Aloe sensu stricto and recognized several segregate genera to reflect monophyletic groups. This reclassification aimed to provide a more accurate understanding of the evolutionary relationships among these succulent plants.
Why Were These Changes Made?
Genetic Evidence: Molecular phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that the broad circumscription of Aloe included species that were not closely related, necessitating a more precise taxonomic structure.
Taxonomic Clarification: By segregating Aloe into distinct genera, the classification now more accurately represents the evolutionary histories and relationships among these succulent plants.
Key Genera and Reclassified Species
Several new genera have been established or reinstated, incorporating species formerly classified under Aloe:
Aloidendron: This genus includes the tree aloes, characterized by their tall, branching structures.
Aloidendron barberae (formerly Aloe barberae): Known as the Tree Aloe, native to South Africa and Mozambique.
Aloidendron dichotomum (formerly Aloe dichotoma): Commonly called the Quiver Tree, found in Namibia and South Africa.
Aloiampelos: Comprising the rambling or climbing aloes, these species exhibit a sprawling growth habit.
Aloiampelos ciliaris (formerly Aloe ciliaris): Known as the Climbing Aloe, indigenous to South Africa.
Aloiampelos tenuior (formerly Aloe tenuior): Referred to as the Fence Aloe, also native to South Africa.
Kumara: This genus was reinstated to include species with fan-shaped leaf arrangements.
Kumara plicatilis (formerly Aloe plicatilis): Known as the Fan Aloe, endemic to the Western Cape of South Africa.
Gonialoe: Characterized by their compact, triangular leaves arranged in three ranks.
Gonialoe variegata (formerly Aloe variegata): Commonly called the Partridge Breast Aloe, found in South Africa and Namibia.
Aristaloe: A monotypic genus distinguished by unique floral structures.
Aristaloe aristata (formerly Aloe aristata): Known as the Lace Aloe, native to South Africa.
Tulista: Separated from Haworthia, this genus includes species with robust, often tuberculate leaves.
Tulista pumila (formerly Haworthia pumila): Recognized for its distinctive, raised leaf tubercles.
Haworthiopsis: Also split from Haworthia, comprising species with firm, often spiny leaves.
Haworthiopsis attenuata (formerly Haworthia attenuata): Known as the Zebra Plant, native to South Africa.
Species Remaining in Aloe
Despite these reclassifications, the genus Aloe still contains numerous species, including:
Aloe vera: Commonly known as True Aloe or Medicinal Aloe, widely cultivated for its medicinal properties.
Aloe arborescens: Known as the Candelabra Aloe, native to southern Africa.
Aloe ferox: Referred to as the Bitter Aloe, found in South Africa.
Aloe marlothii: Known as the Mountain Aloe, native to southern Africa.
Aloe polyphylla: Called the Spiral Aloe, endemic to Lesotho.
Implications for Plant Enthusiasts
Naming Conventions: These taxonomic updates may or may not yet be reflected in all nurseries and plant literature, leading to potential confusion.
Care Requirements: The reclassification does not affect the horticultural care of these succulents; their cultivation needs remain consistent with their species characteristics.
Botanical Understanding: Staying informed about these changes enhances appreciation of plant diversity and evolutionary relationships.
While these taxonomic revisions may take time to be widely adopted, they represent a more accurate understanding of the relationships within this group of succulents.
Why These Reclassifications Matter for Houseplant Enthusiasts
Botanical name changes can seem overwhelming at first, but they offer real advantages for plant lovers, collectors, and the broader horticultural community. Understanding these updates allows for better research, improved plant care, and a deeper appreciation of plant evolution.
How Name Changes Benefit Enthusiasts
✔ Access to Accurate Information – Searching by updated names ensures you find the most reliable and scientifically-backed plant care information in databases and academic research.
✔ Clearer Communication in the Community – Recognizing both old and new names helps avoid confusion in plant forums, gardening clubs, and social media discussions.
✔ Refined Plant Care Knowledge – Newly recognized genera often reflect real differences in care requirements. For example, climbing aloes (Aloiampelos) may need trellising, while rosette aloes (Aloe) prefer compact pots.
✔ Understanding Evolutionary Relationships – Learning why Sansevieria now belongs to Dracaena highlights hidden connections between plants, deepening botanical knowledge.
✔ Increased Collector Value – Name changes often spark renewed interest in certain species, making some plants more collectible and sought-after.
How to Handle Multiple Names in Plant Shops and Online
Many nurseries and retailers take time to adopt new botanical names. Here’s how to stay informed and shop with confidence:
Search Both Names – If looking for care tips for Goeppertia orbifolia, also search for its former name, Calathea orbifolia.
Use Authoritative Databases – Reliable sources for updated classifications include:
Consult the Community – Plant forums, online groups, and botanical societies often adopt new names faster than retailers and can help clarify synonyms.
Double-Label Your Plants – When maintaining a collection, label plants with both names (e.g., Dracaena trifasciata (syn. Sansevieria trifasciata)) to track changes.
Learn and stay Flexible – Nurseries often retain market-friendly names for consistency. Knowing both names helps you navigate plant shops without confusion.
Challenges and Criticism of Botanical Reclassifications
Botanical reclassifications are essential for scientific accuracy, but they also present practical and ethical challenges for researchers, plant nurseries, and enthusiasts. While advancements in DNA sequencing have clarified plant relationships, these updates often lead to confusion, inconsistencies, and debates within the scientific community.
Declining Number of Trained Taxonomists
The shortage of trained plant taxonomists is a growing concern. As molecular phylogenetics takes center stage, fewer specialists are being trained in traditional classification methods, including morphology-based identification. This decline slows the development of comprehensive plant checklists, leading to inconsistencies in classification across different botanical databases.
Balancing Genetic and Morphological Data
While DNA sequencing has revolutionized plant taxonomy, some critics argue that overreliance on genetic data can lead to counterintuitive reclassifications. Many plant species have been grouped together for centuries based on shared physical traits, but genetic research has sometimes placed them in separate genera despite their morphological similarities. This has sparked debate among botanists, as field identification becomes more difficult when names change based solely on molecular evidence.
Conflicting Taxonomic Databases
Global botanical databases often disagree on plant classifications, making it harder for researchers and enthusiasts to track name changes. Studies have found that some plant checklists only align about 60% of the time, meaning that a species may have different accepted names depending on the database used. This lack of standardization creates confusion, especially in conservation efforts and international trade.
Impact on the Horticultural Industry
Plant rowers, nurseries and retailers often retain older names to avoid disrupting commercial sales. A species that was once a best-seller under a familiar name may struggle to gain recognition under its new classification. This leads to delays in adopting new nomenclature, causing discrepancies between scientific literature and what is labeled in plant shops.
Ethical and Cultural Considerations
Beyond scientific challenges, the botanical community is also re-examining historically problematic plant names. Some species have been renamed to remove references to racist, colonial, or offensive terminology. Efforts to update plant names to reflect modern ethical standards are ongoing, but these changes add another layer of complexity for those tracking reclassifications.
Can This Be Improved?
Experts suggest practical steps to make reclassifications more accessible and user-friendly:
Balance Genetic & Physical Traits – Combine DNA analysis with traditional botanical characteristics for a more intuitive classification system.
Better Collaboration Between Databases – Encourage global consistency in plant names to minimize conflicting classifications.
Stronger Communication with the Public – Nurseries, botanical institutions, and online platforms should work together to inform plant enthusiasts about name changes.
While reclassifications will continue as science advances, improving clarity and accessibility will help everyone—from botanists to home gardeners—adapt to these updates more smoothly.
Conclusion
Botanical name changes can initially seem overwhelming, but they are part of progressive science. From subgenus Meconostigma emerging as Thaumatophyllum, to most Calathea species moving to Goeppertia, and the entire Sansevieria genus now recognized under Dracaena, each shift underscores a more accurate understanding of plant evolution.
For houseplant aficionados, staying current with scientific nomenclature pays off. It ensures you find the best care recommendations, fosters clearer communication in plant communities, and enriches your appreciation for the diversity of life. Far from being arbitrary, each reclassification is built on a foundation of genetic data and peer-reviewed studies.
Remember: your “Snake Plant” remains just as hardy, and your “Philodendron selloum” remains just as majestic—now with a story rooted in genetic discovery. Embrace these changes as an opportunity to grow your botanical knowledge and deepen your connection with the green world around you.
References and Further Reading
Botanical Databases
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew – Plants of the World Online
Comprehensive database containing updated plant taxonomies and synonym lists.
International Plant Names Index (IPNI)
Collaborative project between Kew, Harvard University Herbaria, and the Australian National Herbarium for scientific plant name indexing.
Catalogue of Life
Lists updated synonyms and accepted names for plant species.
World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP)
Resource for cross-verifying current accepted names and taxonomic status.
Scientific Publications
Mayo, S. J., Bogner, J., & Boyce, P. C. (1997). The Genera of Araceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Foundational reference on aroid classification, informing modern molecular-based revisions.
Lu, P.-L. & Morden, C. W. (2014). Phylogenetic Relationships among Dracaenoid Genera (Asparagaceae: Nolinoideae) Inferred from Chloroplast DNA Loci. Systematic Botany, 39(1): 90–104.
Lu, P.-L. & Morden, C. W. (2011). Phylogenetics of the Plant Genera Dracaena and Pleomele (Asparagaceae). Botanica Orientalis: Journal of Plant Science, 7: 64–72.
Kim, H.T., Lee, J.H., & Kim, J.S. (2022). Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic implications of Dracaena and related taxa (Asparagaceae) based on plastid genome data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 169: 107419.
Borchsenius, F., Suárez Suárez, L. S., & Prince, L. M. (2012). Molecular Phylogeny and Redefined Generic Limits of Calathea (Marantaceae). Systematic Botany, 37(3): 620–635.
Fernandes, G. D. C., Luna, N. K., Fraga, E., Barros, M. C., Chase, M. W., & Pessoa, E. M. (2023). Molecular phylogenetics of Maranta (Marantaceae: Zingiberales): Non-monophyly and support for a wider circumscription. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 202(2): 181–194.
Smith, G. F. & Figueiredo, E. (2020). Asphodelaceae. In: Eggli, U., Nyffeler, R. (eds) Monocotyledons. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Klopper, R. R., Grace, O. M., Klopper, A. W., Smith, G. F., & Van Wyk, A. E. (2023). A taxonomic revision of Aloe sect. Purpurascentes (Asphodelaceae subfam. Alooideae). Phytotaxa, 628(1): 1–64.
Grace, O. M., Klopper, R. R., Smith, G. F., & Crouch, N. (2013). A revised generic classification for Aloe (Xanthorrhoeaceae subfam. Asphodeloideae). Phytotaxa, 76(1): 7–14.
Manning, J. C. & Boatwright, J. (2014). A molecular phylogeny and generic classification of Asphodelaceae subfamily Alooideae: A final resolution of the prickly issue of polyphyly in the alooids? Systematic Botany, 39(1): 55–74.
Takawira-Nyenya, R., Thiede, J., & Mucina, L. (2021). New nomenclatural and taxonomic adjustments in Dracaena (Asparagaceae). Phytotaxa, 524(4): 293–300.
Tallei, T., Riano, E., Rembet, J. J., & Pelealu, B. J. (2016). Sequence variation and phylogenetic analysis of Sansevieria trifasciata (Asparagaceae). Bioscience Research, 13(1): 1–7.
Braga, J. M. A. (2014). New combinations in the genus Goeppertia (Marantaceae). Phytotaxa, 167(1): 13.
Sakuragui, C. M., Calazans, L. S. B., de Oliveira, L. L., de Morais, É. B., Benko-Iseppon, A. M., Vasconcelos, S., Schrago, C. E. G., & Mayo, S. J. (2018). Recognition of the genus Thaumatophyllum Schott – formerly Philodendron subg. Meconostigma (Araceae) – based on molecular and morphological evidence. PhytoKeys, 98: 51–71.
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Meyerson, L. A., Smith, G. F., Boatwright, J. S., Crouch, N. R., Figueiredo, E., Foxcroft, L. C., Jarošík, V., Richardson, D. M., Suda, J., & Wilson, J. R. U. (2013). Hitting the right target: Taxonomic challenges for, and of, plant invasions. AoB Plants, 5: plt042.
Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy: The discipline will have to reinvent itself if it is to survive and flourish. Nature, 417(6884): 17–19.
Schellenberger Costa, D., Boehnisch, G., Freiberg, M., Govaerts, R., Grenié, M., Hassler, M., Kattge, J., Muellner-Riehl, A. N., Rojas Andrés, B. M., et al. (2023). The big four of plant taxonomy – a comparison of global checklists of vascular plant names. New Phytologist, 239(5): 1935–1950.
U.S. Botanical Capacity ReportPublished by BGCI.
Lowry II, P. P., & Plunkett, G. M. (2020). Resurrection of the genus Heptapleurum for the Asian clade of species previously included in Schefflera (Araliaceae). Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature, 28(3): 143–170.
GBIF Data on Thaumatophyllum
Comprehensive species data from GBIF.
Comments