If you're tired of the term 'monocarpic', why not use hapaxanthic? It's so much more pedantic ---- Jim McKenney <jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com> wrote: > Several things in Tonys post deserve comment. It always fascinates me to > see how different people come to very different conclusions even when they > seem to start with the same basic assumptions. > > > > First, I would like to raise the touchy subject of just what this word > monocarpic means. Ive always understood the word to mean that the plant so > described dies after blooming and setting seed. Yet many of the plants > called monocarpic by some people do not die after blooming and setting seed. > The main rosette of such plants dies, but by then the plant has often > offsets and is surrounded by offsets which perpetuate the plant. > > > > To me, the pup and the main plant are the same plant, pieces of one original > seedling. If you are the sort of person who regards the pup and the main > plant to be different plants, they youve got your argument cut out for you. > > > > > The use of this word monocarpic whatever you think it means - with respect > to Agave is particularly appropriate because the nineteenth century botanist > de Candolle who coined the word used Agave as an example. As a result, > there are those who take the point of view that by definition it is correct > to call Agave monocarpic no matter what you think the word means. To these > people, that fact that the etymology of the word seems to be saying > something about Agave which is not necessarily true is irrelevant. > > > > As a result of all of this, many people now eschew the word monocarpic > because of the ambiguities surrounding its meaning. > > > > Now on to this business of the significance of hybridization to taxonomy. > Here again, where you end up in this discussion depends on where you start. > To state the argument in one of its most radical forms, there are those who > would say that the ability of two plants to cross and produce viable > offspring is evidence that they are conspecific, they are the same species > (never mind Tonys concern about its significance at the generic level. Im > talking about the species level). To those who adopt this approach, what > the plants in question look like has nothing to do with it. > > > > One of the unresolved questions which taxonomists have to deal with is the > nature of the ranks/categories they use. There are two basic schools of > thought on this matter. One school asserts that species is a real, natural > phenomenon that there really is something out there which corresponds to > what we call species. The other school of thought says that species is > whatever we decide it is. Ive never seen a plausible argument from either > side in defense of the natural nature of genera I think that the > consensus on both sides is that genera are man made. > > > > The natural species point of view will be robustly rejected by those who > expect taxonomy to have some practical value in pigeonholing items. > > > > One result of this huge dichotomy in what people think is the proper > function of taxonomy is that parallel systems of naming coexist side by > side. To give a simple example of this, the wild typical form of Narcissus > jonquilla is known to botanists as Narcissus jonquilla (or if you prefer N. > jonquilla subspecies jonquilla). Yet in the horticultural literature, this > same plant is known and has been known for centuries - as Narcissus > jonquilla simplex. Horticulturists like this name because it expresses what > is important to them it distinguishes the single- flowered form (single in > the sense of normal flowered, not one flowered) from the various > double-flowered forms (those forms in which the floral parts are deformed > and multiplied). Horticulturists are concerned about a distinction which > does not even register on modern botanists radar. > > > > Finally, those plants which result from the fusion of alien genomes really > dont enter into taxonomic discussions of the sort which are based on > traditional assumptions about shared ancestry. > > > > So when Tony says Wait until they see the new x Velox...a cross of Verbena > and Phlox (reportedly a result of protoplast fusion)....we're talking > different families. That should turn the taxonomists on their heads. he > might be right about it turning them on their heads, but if it does Ill bet > that the turning of their heads will be the result of their being bent over > in laughter. The little × in front of that name Velox (is there really such > a thing?) identifies that name as a nothotaxon - it tells you that it is > from a naming system which is distinct from the naming system used in > traditional botany. The feelings of traditional taxonomists might very well > be more on the order of the feelings not nice feelings, but undeniably > funny you get when you visit the shabby side of town and see well, you > see the sort of things which go on there. > > > > > > Jim McKenney > > jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com > > Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871º North, 77.09829º West, USDA zone > 7 > > My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ > > BLOG! http://mcwort.blogspot.com/ > > > > Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS > > Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/ > > > > Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/