On Dec 15, 2005, at 3:36 AM, Rachel Saunders wrote: > I once complained to [John Manning] about the > Galaxias being lumped into Moraeas, and he said "well, continue to > call them > Galaxias, you don't have to change them!" so I do. > > All that the botanists do > by lumping them is acknowledge that they are very closely related to > Ornithogalum, and should be in the same "box". > I know I said this almost a year ago, but I'm moved to say it again. It's fine and dandy that we can continue to call a species by whatever valid name it already had, pre-lumping. But if this keeps up ad infinitum, then we'll end up with a chaos of names all synonymous to each other, all to describe a single species. I thought one of a number of reasons (we're always told) for becoming familiar with and using the scientific name is so that everyone in any language or country can all know what species we're talking about. If all synonyms are okay to use, we might as well just use familiar names in our own language. After all, some familiar names are quite similar in a number of different languages. (I'm thinking of maybe species such as the lion?) Since a genus name is quite useful in grouping a bunch of similar species together, it particularly perturbs me when genera are lumped together causing the loss of some particular distinctive characteristic that the species within each genera had with each other and not with the species in the other former genera. And yet it is also very useful knowledge to have closely related genera grouped together in some way that exhibits the relatedness that the new DNA methods of analysis are producing. So once again I would like to suggest that all these taxonomists should make greater use of the supergenus rank. I Googled it and it turns out that it has been used a number of times, for both animal as well as plant species (and even a bacteria or two popped up), for just this very reason that I've described. One example (if I understood it correctly) is the case of ferrets and various polecat species. They have been found to be genetically much more similar to each other than to other animals in the same genus which includes weasels and minks, etc. The proposal is to make all of these belong to the same supergenus since they are all more closely related to each other than to wolverines or otters, but that within this grouping there would be 2 or 3 separate genera within which the species are much more closely related as a group. (So you would have the ferret/polecat genus, the weasel genus, etc.) Even though this proposal is in the reverse direction of what I'm proposing for some of these newly lumped plant genera (i.e., "splitting"), the principle is the same. I think there is a lot of merit, for example, to keeping all my Lachenalia species grouped as Lachenalias separately from all my Polyxena species as a group. But knowing that they belonged to the same supergenus "Xxx" would let me know that there is a potential for some interesting hybridizing, similar cultural treatment, etc. And, to me this is far preferable and easier to keep in my mind than creating a multitude of Sections within the same Genus. And..., the DNA guys would be happier, too! On a related now, during my Googling, I found out that there is a lot of discussion and arguing about the same things we've discussed, but to a much more explicit degree. It turns out that there is a serious faction of taxonomists that believe we should just get rid of the entire Linnaean system altogether and move to a new method based entirely on all this new DNA analysis and comparison and cladistic methods that have come into being in the past couple of decades or so. Some of the purists in this camp even want to toss the traditional binomial nomenclature for each species completely. Here are a couple of good articles about it, the first one describing the PhyloCode proponents and their arguments in favor of this completely new way of classification of life and getting rid of the ICBN and ICZN. "What's in a Name?" <http://sciam.com/article.cfm/… -819983414B7FFE9F> The second one is an articulate and detailed argument against the PhyloCode and its proponents. I think it is particularly of interest to people like John Bryan. I found it a little difficult to follow all the terminology, not being a biologist, but I definitely understood the author's arguments. Very interesting. (I think John Bryan will like this one.) ;-) (And John, you can read the other article as an exercise in "knowing the enemy".) :-) "Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead?" <http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/phylocode/…> --Lee Poulsen Pasadena area, California, USDA Zone 10a