The study indicated highly localized speciation, so that different floral syndromes were strongly linked to specific habitats, as follows:[15] Calochortus was first proposed in 1814 by Frederick Pursh to accommodate a specimen—C.

[16] In the 1800s, several species were added to the genus; however, much mistakes in naming conventions led to confusion and minimal knowledge gained by the end of the century.

[16] In 1940, Francis Marion Ownbey wrote a comprehensive monograph on Calochortus, referencing morphological evidence, geographical distribution, and his own study of cytological material.

Rasmussen developed a new treatment splitting Calochortus from Liliaceae, moving it into a separate family—Calochortaceae—based on chromosomal evidence, septicidal fruit, and a Polygonum type embryo sac formation.

In 1999, Patterson used cpDNA (specifically rbcL and ndhF sequences) isolated from frozen or silica dried leaf tissue to develop a molecular phylogeny, finding that Calochortus should be divided into seven major clades based on geographic location:[19] Patterson also determined at the time that concerted convergence and phylogenetic niche conservatism may have confounded the idea that Calochortaceae (Calochortus) and Liliaceae are closely related.

In 2002, Patterson and Givnish expanded on these arguments, showing that concerted convergence was demonstrated through independent evolution of characteristics such as bulbs and showy flowers and the distinct differences of these appearing as a result of survival in specific habitats.

[20] Regarding phylogenetic niche conservatism, Patterson and Givnish make the argument that this phenomenon is present in the plesiomorphic characteristics of rhizomes, inconspicuous flowers, berries, broad leaves, and reticulate venation.

[25] They were eaten by the Mormon settlers between 1853 and 1858 when famine threatened new immigrants in the Great Salt Lake Valley, due to crop failures.