Ipheion 'Rolf Fiedler'
Rodger Whitlock (Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:18 PST)

On 30 Nov 03 at 22:13, Lee Poulsen wrote:

Not necessarily. If you go back and read John McGregor's
previous message, in the quoted material

you see a reason given for considering Ipheion and Tristagma as not
being distinct genera. If you choose to reject that reason, then you
are free to continue calling ipheions Ipheion and tristagmas
Tristagma.

Remember that with a very few exceptions, taxonomy is a matter of
opinion, not prescription. Just because Traub says so doesn't
necessarily make it so. Other botanists may have equally good reasons
for rejecting his lumping and continue to distinguish Ipheion from
Tristagma.

In the long run, Traub's proposal will be generally accepted, or not,
by the botanical community and there is no requirement that the
horticultural community take his word as definitive. There have been
many proposed lumpings and splittings of genera and species which
have not survived the test of time.

We gardeners, on the other hand, actually have to deal with the
living plants on a day to day basis, not just rarely and only with
dried specimens. We naturally tend to be more conservative than the
botanists.

So go right ahead and keep the old names.

Note that this question of lumping and splitting of taxa is different
from that of mere synonymy. The old name "Iris stylosa" eventually
yielded to "Iris unguicularis" which had priority, but they are
unquestionably the same plant.

I also wonder what work has been done in the ensuing forty years on
these genera and whether later students of these genera agree with
Traub's analysis.

--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Maritime Zone 8, a cool Mediterranean climate

on beautiful Vancouver Island