Dear Jane: Well stated. Cheers, John E. Bryan Jane McGary wrote: > > 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