Jim, you're no fun. By and large I think I agree with you. At 06:51 PM 1/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Jim McK., > >Good idea! The weather here is definitely not conducive to outdoor >activities -- too cold and too windy. Sorry, Diane. Back to the keyboard. > >1. A Geophyte is whatever we define it to be. I define the concept very >broadly: A plant having some sort of subterranean storage organ and an >herbaceous, perennial habit. Since I'm not a taxonomist, you can take my >"definition" with a grain of salt. (I've noticed that some real >taxonomists in the past have used conflicting concepts as invitations to war.) > >I think the usual definition, limiting "geophytes" to bulbs, corms, tubers, >or rhizomes, is a bit narrow. Jim Waddick's Paeonia, some of Mary Sue's >Delphinium, lots of things with "fat" roots, surely ought to be >included. I like to say something like, "geophytes and friends" for >suitable discussion topics. The term "geophyte" is, after all, not a >phylogenetic classification but a pragmatic one. > >2. Species are human conceptual constructs too, by and large. Those >obvious species, easily perceived, are not the problems of course. > >For a lot of biologists, I suspect the true but unspoken definition is >something like "I can't actually define species, but I know one when I see >one." There are a few, like Pierre Felice Ravenna, who see new species >wherever they look. There may be matters of ego gratification involved, or >more serious motivations like getting tenure or a promotion. All sorts of >things can help define "species." > >The definition that goes something like "a species is an interbreeding >population" bothers most people, who seem to read into it the word >"potentially"; i.e., "a species is a [potentially] interbreeding >population" which confuses the devil out of things where plants are >concerned. The orchids present an obvious case in point, with myriads of >complex, multiply (adverb of "multiple") intergeneric hybrids made in >cultivation. Remember: where species are concerned, cultivation does not >count! I like the approach that starts with a species as an identifiable >group of individuals, sharing certain traits in common. You can elaborate >from there. > >This also opens up the notion of reticulated evolution, or interspecific, >possibly intergeneric, even inter-kingdom transfers of genetic >material. For instance, the human genome is full of relict viruses. How >do you want to handle that? This just shows how far Mother Nature will go >to frustrate human attempts to organize things into neat pigeonholes. > >Jim Shields (a.k.a. Jim S; i.e., not Jim W and not Jim McK) >in central Indiana (USA) > >At 05:00 PM 1/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: >>I'm bored! Let's get some good fights going here! Let's start some threads >>on 1) the definition of geophyte and 2) species concept. >> >>To start, I'll stick my neck out and offer these (perhaps outrageous) >>propositions: >> >>1) with respect to geophytes, not all bulbs are geophytes >> >>2) with respect to species concept, living things don't exist as species, >>they just exist >> >>Fire up your blazing keyboards! >> >>Jim McKenney > >************************************************* >Jim Shields USDA Zone 5 Shields Gardens, Ltd. >P.O. Box 92 WWW: http://www.shieldsgardens.com/ >Westfield, Indiana 46074, USA >Tel. ++1-317-867-3344 or toll-free 1-866-449-3344 in USA > >_______________________________________________ >pbs mailing list >pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >