Dear Sirs: I saw the recent(?) thread involving a discussion of recent name changes by Manning, Goldblatt, et al. The last response was by Harold Koopowitz. Please forgive my naivete, I am not sure how these threads work but I did subscribe a few moments ago to the pbs discussion email. Just a few thoughts on this subject. Poulson and Koopowitz both make excellent points, and so the following may be somewhat redundant. There are any number of roughly comparable 'conundrums' in plant taxonomy- whether to split or lump Apiaceae~Araliaceae, Campanulaceae~Lobeliaceae, and the classic example: whether the legumes should be arranged in 3 families or 3 subfamilies. Does it really matter? The purpose of a classification scheme is to allow communication with others regarding recognizable groupings of plants. Some of the original genera treated by Manning, Goldblatt and Fay are no doubt artificial concepts and that some of them should go away after a modern analysis is not surprising. The usefulness or practicality aspect has in recent years often been subverted, in my opinion, by the urge to act on the onslaught of molecular evidence of how things "really are". This urge derives from an almost obsessive focus on the phylogeny, or inferred evolutionary history, of various organisms. On closer inspection some of these taxonomic studies are "missing" various species or genera that could not be obtained and sampling is generally broad and shallow rather than narrow and in-depth. In addition, decisions about what type of DNA and type of analysis will be used also diminish objectiveness, as pointed out by Poulson. Having said this, much good has come from molecular detective work, e.g., the resolution of the previous mess we called the Scrophulariaceae or snapdragon family. New ways of looking at morphology and other attributes have also come from gene sequencing. It is virtually impossible for any classification to reflect perfectly the presumed phylogeny of a group, simply because the stream of data is unending, including discoveries of new organisms. Therefore compelling arguments need to be presented when familiar names and older useful concepts are rejected. A fact that escapes many frustrated growers, as pointed out by Harold, is that valid name changes are in fact optional. Some of the changes in the hyacinth family do seem jarring. I am not surprised that Albuca turns out to be very close to Ornithogalum. But if the same groups are still recognized at different ranks (i.e. subgenus or section Albuca in Ornithogalum, vs genus Albuca), then it is merely rearranging the furniture. The issue of ranking is one of the key difficulties in classifying plants and accounts for much of the subjective nature of various treatments. The point is that Albuca should probably be recognized at *some* level. It is a shame that we have "lost" some highly recognizable name concepts, such as Galaxia, Albuca, Whiteheadia. I have heard botanists chide growers for their attachment to names ("Are you collecting plants or are you collecting labels?") but in many cases I think we are attached to concepts, very often valid ones. Dylan Hannon