Well I bet there are a whole bunch of different genes and associated regulators requred to give a leaf a midrib, and we'll very likely not know what they are this century! I agree, philosophically speaking. Why on earth Bruyns stuck Monadenium into Euphorbia I'll never understand, but I can tell a Brunsvigia from an Amaryllis ... T> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:51:00 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] Sinking Brunsvigia> > Tim,> Whatever the evidence employed, once substantiated monophyletic groups are> worked out then the rank of those groups becomes "academic". Hence the> subjective nature of taxonomic schemes and hence the everlasting hope of> armchair botanists for more suitable arrangements.> Dylan> > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 PM, Tim Harvey <zigur@hotmail.com> wrote:> > >> > Oh, I see another genus akin to Euphorbia in the making! I believe some> > investigation of these relationships have been done at the DNA level, though> > I regard such data as important as other physical descriptors.> >> > T> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:40:02 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To:> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] Sinking Brunsvigia> > Leo, Jim--> > I've also felt it would be sensible to at least consider this> merger. They> > are separated by seemingly non-profound details of the seeds> and the leaves> > with midrib (Amaryllis) or without (Brunsvigia), whereas the> traits in> > common are overwhelming. Is morphological homogeneity important in> defining> > genera? How important?> The same applies to the seemingly artificial> > distinction of Hessea from> Strumaria, based on somewhat variable character> > states. Carpolyza has> already been lumped under the latter. I suppose the> > taxonomists are happy to> rely more on molecular data when the going gets> > tough regarding when to> split and when to lump.> Dylan> > On Dec 12, 2007> > 1:23 PM, Leo A. Martin <leo@possi.org> wrote:> > > > One other way to get> > more species: given the easy "hybridization" of> > > Amaryllis and> > Brunsvigia, I've long been wait> > ing for someone to combine> > > those genera: the plants have already> > done it, now it's time for the> > > taxonomists to catch up.> > >> > > Jim> > McKenney> >> > That would be great! Amaryllis (1753) is so much easier to> > grow than> > Brunsvigia (1755)!> >> > Leo Martin> > Phoenix Arizona USA> >>> > > _______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> >> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> >> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >>> > _______________________________________________> pbs mailing list>> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php>> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> > _______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >> _______________________________________________> pbs mailing list> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/