I'his paper disc usses the intrafamilial s>-stematics of Ruscaccae te/z.tu lato h! ineans of a combined nioleculai--mo~~hological analysis. Kuscaceae censu /at0 [including Tc)rmer-Convallariaccac. Drac-ae~iaccac and Solinaccac. as wcll as Comu.s/irnrium and Eriopmuin) reprcscnt a well-supported clad(. in other molecular analyses and arc lurther linked h y t h y abscncc of d coat. \Vithin this clade there is an uriusual lack of sequencc d i \ w icall? mried group of taxa, but the combined morphological-mol analysis indic.atc\ some grouping-s: (1) Etiopmunr. (2) (btrro~pmnum, f 3 ) nolinoids (former Nolinaceac) pIu\ 01p/zio/1ogon and Liriope (Ophiopogonac . rxcludir LR Pe/io.rnnt/m) ~ j t I dracaenoids (former l)racacnaccacj, (3 Polygonatae and (6) a clade comprising C;on\.allaricac (including Aspzdi~tra) arid the ruscoids (Ruscaccar srnsu &do) plus P~liotnrzther. In the morphological analysis Peliotanl/irr i, embedded in Convallarieae, and in thc molecular anal>-sis it is sistrr to all other Ruscaccac cxccpt Erio.cpmiunr: in neithtr case does it fall xcith O p h i u p p i and Liriope (Ophiopogonac), with which it \vas traditionall>-placcd. Pm/iu.carithrc has WL rral charactrrs in common w i t h sonic ~:on\~allarieae. c.g. filaments fused into i i colunin surrounding thc gynoecium, and a thick, fleshy corona with the stigma niorc o r less filling the narrou floral openiiig. On tlir other hand. there are also some notable diffrrrnces. such as in karyotypc, leaf anatom?, pollen m o r p h o h p and nectarics. Since there is a cotisitlcrahlc range of morphological \-ariation in the taxon currently-designated as I'elzuvzrithrJ. more taxonomic work is nccclcd t o establish the monophyly of this genus ticforc tlierr can Iic confiderice in its relationsliip~ \ci thin Kuscaccae sensu lato.