Evidence for incorporating the genera Cimicifuga and Souliea into Actaea was published in 1998. Taxon 47, Aug. 1998, ppg. 593-634 http://www.jstor.org/view/00400262/ap040272/04a00040/0 (note link requires subscription to view) This has become adopted by most botanists and UBCBG agrees. As of June 26, 2006 the entries and labels of all accessions of these genera will be accordingly changed.
Others disagree, though: Lee, H.-W. & Park, C.-W. (2004). New Taxa of Cimicifuga (Ranunculaceae) from Korea and the United States. Novon 14: 180–184 http://www.fna.org/china/novon/novo-14-02-180.pdf Wang, W. T., Li, L.-Q. & Wang, Z. (1999). Notulae de Ranunculaceis Sinensibus XXIII. Acta Phytotax. Sinica. 37: 209–219. Flora of China: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=100421 So it doesn't look like a done deal, at least not yet
I am familiar with Actea producing a fleshy berry but wondered about the free dry carpels of Cimicifuga? Wouldn't this technical difference in Angiosperm floral characteristics normally be too strong a structural feature to ignore irrespective of other more recent techniques used for classification? A strong case here I would have thought?
I guess you'd need to show that all the fleshy fruited species share a common ancestor separate from the common ancestor of all the dry fruited species. That need not be the case; it could be that either character has evolved more than once in the lineage.
