Dear All: The points raised by Mark McDonough Pepperell in his posting of December 22nd, is most deserving of comment. I too feel the proposed Scilla ultra breakup is splitting to an unnecessarily excessive level. But such seems to be taking place with many other genera. Several questions need to be raised. No doubt as the science ( falsely so called perhaps) of DNA advances, we will hear about other radical changes, not, repeat not, to the benefit of all. I am reminded of the division of Narcissus some years ago, when after a few years, the divisions were found to be not valid. Heaven knows what happened to those who, upon reading of the changes, mixed the various species only to find they had to return, in a large degree, to the way things were. I do not doubt the value of examination of the DNA of species. But it seems to me, as I have mentioned in various writings, that it is time for a compilation of such information in a separate list, this being available to those hybridizing and other such work on the species involved. The destruction, for that is surely what it is, of the established means of identification of species, should be considered in light of the need for identification of species by those without means of examining the DNA. In my opinion differences which can be determined by a hand-held 10 power lens, should be the limit of and the reason for splitting. Is it not time to continue with the established and seen differences, and devise a classification of such genera, as a supplement to such established practices? This "new" classification, based on DNA, being supplementary information, to be used by those whose field of endeavor would be aided by such. Constant changes, will, in my opinion, destroy the established and for so long, accepted classifications. Such will become so complicated that the average horticulturist, will find it difficult if not impossible, to correctly identify a plant. It is, again in my opinion, to place under scrutiny, the entire question of identification. Yes keep the information obtained by DNA in a separate table, but allow the established format for identification based on those characteristics visible with a hand lens, to remain. Great advances have been made, but it seems in their making, recognized and essential and accepted means of identification will fall by the wayside and we will in effect, be the losers. How to achieve this? Good question, but upon examination of this question, which can and should be done, an effort should be made to marry the two systems without the destruction of established methods of identification. Cheers, John E. Bryan