On 7 Jul 05 at 23:53, Leo A. Martin wrote: [a great deal of good sense] I have two comments. First, You fail to take into account that the concept of genus and species are found in many different cultures including very "primitive" ones. (Note parentheses.) Second, you overlook the fact that the botany of cultivated plants, including ornamentals, is a worthy field of study in its own right. Botany needn't be restricted to plants of known wild origin. Edgar Anderson's famous "Plants, Life, and Man" gives some examples. To return to the first point: In the northern hemisphere, for example, virtually every culture recognized the genus "oak" and knew there were X kinds of oaks that were distinct. Thus, the genus-species binomial is partly rooted in basic human psychology. Alberto Castillo has mentioned on occasion the taxonomic mess that some South American bulbs present, with (for example) some species wandering from Beauverdia to Ipheion to Nothoscordum, perhaps with some extra stops on the way. It's clear that where a group of plants is actively evolving (amaryllids in Argentina, the genus Narcissus in the Iberian peninsula), the binomial system is much harder to apply because the genera and species aren't so clearly delineated. So I ask that the binomials be viewed as more significant than a nearly arbitrary two-level grouping of "plants that are alike in some way." Footnote: Quercus is maybe not a good example because it contains some very distinct subgenera. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Maritime Zone 8, a cool Mediterranean climate on beautiful Vancouver Island