Scilla
Antennaria@aol.com (Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:50:10 PST)

I read a couple of sound responses to the proposed reorganization of Scilla.
It was asked "What reaction to these proposed changes do Scilla enthusiasts
have?"

Tonight, when I watched 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas' by Dr. Seuss, I
couldn't help but sense a parallel, when hearing such unlikely names as Schnarfia,
Prospero, Pseudoprospero, Spetaea, Pfosseria, and a litany of other names for
a small genus that previously seemed readily discernable, that it implies a
Dr.Seussian language made up just for the sheer fun of it.

My impression of the proposed Scilla ultra-breakup is that it is splitting to
an unnecessarily excessive level whereby monotypic genera are many, and
genera with but a few species equally proliferate. This seems polar to a prevalent
recent trend to condense taxonomic vernacular whereby genera are lumped and
there's a condensation of species. This dichotomy and apparent randomness of
species delineation, depending on genera and taxonomists personal inclinations
and motives, is what's so disconcerting to us on the sidelines.

It's interesting too, to see the impact and radical direction that DNA
studies has taken the science of taxonomy. A recent trend, it seems to me, is the
use of DNA research to the seeming exclusion of other traditional taxonomic
considerations, resulting in a roller coaster redifinition of taxonomy that's
hard to fathom, let alone accept. Soon, I think, most plants will be shown
conclusively to be related to rutabagas (joking), redefining taxonomy in it's
entirety.

Just imagine what a young, ambitious taxonomist could do with the genus
Allium. The minor botanical differences cited for Scilla regrouping (size and
shape of seed for example), could easily apply to the 850+ species in Allium, to
break the genus apart into several hundred new genera. I also find it
interesting, that the supplied bibliography lists two taxonomists, each with genera
named after themselves! Although, I'm sure these botanists have but the most
modest of intentions ;-)

I find it interesting, curious, inconsistent, and contradictory that even
within a genus such as allium, that North American species (about 130 taxa) are
largely defined by microscopic bulb coat reticulation patterns, whereas in the
rest of the northern hemisphere, delineating approximately 720 taxa, such
criteria is largely irrelevant, and other characteristics are involved in species
determination. Looking at such widely dispersed genera as Allium, it seems to
the lay-person that taxonomy can be a crap-shoot, dictated by incoherent,
randomized, geographically localized, and often contradictory series of taxonomic
criteria for species delineation when "the whole" is considered.

Back to Allium for instance, we have the species with true bulbs. There is
also a large group with rhizomes. Given the criteria applied to Scilla, should
not these two very different rootstalk characteristics in Allium require the
split into two separate genera? But then there are some species, while
rhizomatous, have well defined bulbs attached to each other by a horizontal iris-like
rhizome, surely this should be another genus. There are some species that
only have rhizomes present during a certain period in the active growth cycle,
might not these become a new classification altogether, perhaps considered one
new genus when the rhizomes are present, and another genus for the other part
of the year where the rhizomes disappear... a new realm of morphing polygenera.

How about pedicels. Typically in allium, they are all equal length.
Although in some, they are "subequal" resulting in oblong heads (new genus here),
while others have vastly different length pedicels... some short, some
exceptionally long, all in the same head such as in schubertii and protensum, another
new genus here. Most alliums have very dense heads, certainly a solid
characteristic worthy of unique genus status, whereas others have very open airy heads
(yet another new genus). Those with drooping flowering, a new genus without
question.

Seed charactistics use to differentiate genera! Wow, we can go nuts with
that one. We'll add a dozen new ex-Allium genera from that alone. Most alliums
have linear leaves, but what about the whole group with stalked leaves; e.g.
leaves with a long narrow basal petiole and then a broad multi-veined leaf,
looking more like a Convallaria or hosta leaf than any sort of Allium. That has
to be a new genus. There are alliums where all the leaves are basal, and those
where the leaves sheath much of the stems. Plentiful new genera to be sure.
The fruiting (seed) structures are equally diverse, with different quantities
of seed in each "locule", ovaries crested or crestless, stipitate or not,
many more new genera belong here I should think. Of course I am joking bluntly
in the last several paragraphs, and I hope no such nonsense gets applied to the
genus Allium as we know it today.

My honest reaction to the proposed Scilla redefinition is that it is overly
analayzed. I could well imagine 2, 3, maybe 4 genera emerging, but the
proposed delineation seems as fruitless and evanescent as the endless shakedown on
the old Liliaceae.

Mark McDonough Pepperell, Massachusetts, United States
antennaria@aol.com "New England" USDA Zone 5
==============================================