Dear Rachel: I find flowering by month not a bad thing, one can always go a month forward or back depending on the season. Jane's point, grouping by color, is much more difficult to deal with. Cheers, John E. Bryan Rachel Saunders wrote: > > Dear Jane > Another hate in flower guides: some of our flower guides in South Africa > are arranged by the month in which the plants flower. That to me is the > worst of all. > Regards > Rachel Saunders > Cape Town > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane McGary <janemcgary@earthlink.net> > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:17 PM > Subject: [pbs] Plant guidebooks and taxonomy > > > In a recent posting on "Taxonomic changes," Mary Sue Ittner wrote: > > "...a friend who is rewriting a book identifying local flora ... has > always > > divided the book by families and was distressed about all the changes > she'd > > have to make in the revision and was also wondering what the common names > > were for the new families since she had labeled the family names by their > > common names, not their scientific names, just as she describes the plants > > by their common names although in this case she adds the scientific name > in > > small type below. I told her the public who uses her book looks at her > > drawings and pays little attention to the families and appreciates that > she > > has divided it by color of the flowers. ... But she still wants to arrange > > it in "the correct way." In the front of her book she has a key to the > > families and if she continues it in the revision I can see how she might > > struggle a bit to make everything fit." > > > > As an editor of reference books, I think about these matters a lot as I > use > > plant manuals. Some thoughts: > > > > 1. I can't stand plant books arranged by flower color. First, the flowers > > may not be present when you're looking at the plant, though you might be > > able to identify it by the capsules or some other trait. Second, some > > species have flowers of various colors, so where do you look for them? > > Third, this results in genera being split up in various parts of the book, > > which is utterly maddening. If you want to cater to readers so naive they > > can't guess at a genus or even family, put in an appendix on flower color. > > > > 2. For the time being, I think it's best to present families as they > > existed when many likely users of a given book learned or relearned them > > (perhaps about 1990 is a good marker), but ALSO to mention recent proposed > > revisions in a note to the key to families. I've learned the hard way not > > to try to adapt to every taxonomic revision that appears, because > sometimes > > the botanist proposing one has second thoughts later and withdraws or > > changes his proposal (e.g., Hershkovits's maneuvers around what most of us > > know as Lewisia tweedyi). > > > > 3. I don't think the "common" family names (e.g., lily family, buttercup > > family for Ranunculaceae) are systematized. For example, what used to be > > called the Umbelliferae and is now the Apiaceae gets called both the > > "carrot" and "parsley" family in English. When huge families are broken up > > (e.g., the former Liliaceae), the spin-off families rarely have handy > > "common" names anyway. Here I apply my bad-tempered motto: "If you can > > learn to say 'carburetor', you can learn to say 'Zauschneria'." A word is > > just a word, no matter how long it is. > > > > 4. It's true that it's hard to sell "wildflower" books without putting in > > "common" names, but the introduction to the book should make it clear that > > many of these common names have never actually been used in the vernacular > > language and are, instead, made up by the writers of wildflower books. > > Nobody else ever called a plant "Howelll's mariposa" or "Five-stamened > > Mitrewort." People in Native Plant Societies often use these artificial > > terms, but if you're from another area or not used to this practice, you > > end up tearing your hair out trying to remember what a "mitrewort" is > > (Mitella, which is EASIER to say and spell). I will be tearing my hair out > > next week, no doubt, at the NARGS annual meeting, where the guides will > > probably trot out these "easy" names. > > > > In addition to being a part of the natural sciences, taxonomy is a part of > > anthropology and linguistics, and also of philosophy. Because most of us > > (the ones without pocket DNA sequencers) approach it from a macro and > > linguistic standpoint, we inevitably encounter confusing areas and > > sometimes feel that we are being carried along helplessly on a flood of > > ever-changing information. The only response for the non-botanists among > > us, I think, is to make it clear what framework we are using in what we > > write, acknowledge alternatives of which we may be aware, and try not to > be > > too anxious. > > > > Jane McGary > > Northwestern Oregon > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pbs mailing list > > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php