Harold Koopowitz responded to Julian Slade's posting on recent work on the genus Ornithogalum: >... With regards to [the report summarized by Slade], Remember that much of the molecular >genetics is only based on one or a few genes (I am not sure of the >situation here) and the cladograms displayed are only one of many >possibilities. It would be most valuable for nonspecialists who are strongly interested in plants to gain a better understanding of how taxonomy is currently being done. I would like to encourage specialists (such as Drs. Koopowitz and Meerow) to think about presenting this information in an article accessible to many readers of the "Rock Garden Quarterly" and "Bulbs." My own specialty is editing scholarly prose, and I would be happy to assist in the preparation of such an explanatory article. One of my mottos is "You can explain [almost] anything to [almost] anyone," although in this case it is surprising how many people are engaged in breeding plants and animals without even the kind of basic understanding of genetics one gets from an introductory biology course. Because cladistics is also used in linguistics, I was familiar with it before I encountered it in biology, so I'm not put off by statements like "only one of many possibilities." However, I also know that many readers are NOT comfortable with them and believe they are being "jerked around" by "those botanists" whenever a name change is proposed. Some of those confused by current taxonomic practice are in the horticultural publishing industry, too, so as an editor I am called on to make decisions about synonyms that I am by no means qualified to make -- and that I'm not sure NEED to be made. Authors can respond with surprising rancor to editorial changes regarding plant names. Jane McGary Northwest Oregon