Harold, one word, AMEN! Cheers John E. Bryan Harold Koopowitz wrote: > > I want to echo what Lee says. For gardeners, names are for convenience. We > can use whatever names we want - no one will fine or jail a person for > using the old names. Only time will tell if these new names will stand up > to scrutiny, in the meantime, use names that you are comfortable with. I > find it amusing that 20 years ago I used to get frustrated by Goldblatt > splitting genera into smaller genera. Now he is doing just the opposite. I > remember a fish taxonomist from Stanford, Rolfe Bolin, once saying that > when he was young he did fine work but when he got older he decided not to > do any more fish taxonomy because he was scared he might mess up his > earlier good work. So he switched to orchid taxonomy because that was so > screwed up he knew he could not damage it any further.... > > Names are forAt 10:29 AM 1/12/2005 -0800, you wrote: > >As much as I admire the work done by people like Manning, Goldblatt, > >and other experts in this area (such as Alan Meerow), even though I'm > >no expert nor do I have college course training in this field, I think > >they've pushed the definition of what a species or genus is or is not, > >according to DNA analysis, too far. Who decides the cut-off point in > >DNA similarity beyond which we will say two different plants are > >different species, or different genera? How did these researchers > >decide on their metric? Since there isn't any hard and fast definition > >about what a Genus is or isn't, but there is this sense that > >growers/hobbyists have, analogous to the U.S. Supreme Court justice's > >statement about how to determine if something was obscene or not: "I > >know it when I see it." (See > ><http://law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/… obscenity.htm>), > >it seems that that kind of thing should also be > >included in deciding whether a group of plants ought to be given their > >own genus name or not. Let us know that they are very closely related > >and that we could try hybridizing them. That would be great > >information. But I see no reason why they can't remain separate genera > >in name, since this is a descriptive term as well as an indication of > >some natural relationship. Maybe these DNA researchers ought to > >increase the importance of a Supergenus or Subfamily name so that we > >all begin to use that category as well as Family, Genus, and Species. > > > >I've already stated on some previous occasion my objections to the > >lumping of Homeria, Gynandriris, (and others?) into Moraea and how > >every single site that sells these always puts the original genus name > >in parentheses next to it because people who grow them still separate > >them into different genuses. I do. > > > >With respect to lumping Polyxena into Lachenalia, I grow quite a few > >species of Lachenalia and around 5 species of Polyxena. I never confuse > >the two and I never get them mixed up. It's great to hear that they are > >so closely related and belong to the same supergenus. Maybe there will > >be people who try hybridizing the two together. But I would never > >consider any Polyxena just another Lachenalia. They're different enough > >to not need to be put into the same genus in my opinion. > > > >I'm even more amazed that these experts now consider Albuca, Dipcadi > >and Ornithogalum all the same. Why? Once again it's great to hear that > >they're all part of the same supergenus and again maybe some > >interesting hybrids might appear in the future. But I see no reason why > >I should just "lump" all my Albuca species' pots mixed in with all my > >Ornithogalum species' pots as if they were all permutations of the same > >general genus. I think even my 2-year-old would be able to separate > >those two groups from each other when in bloom. > > > >Given the fact that research on the human genome is showing that there > >isn't a one-to-one correspondence between a gene on the DNA strand and > >a single trait in a human, and that even some of the non-gene parts of > >DNA may play important parts in determining the growth and > >differentiation of traits in any given organism, it seems a little too > >rushed to say that you can do a DNA analysis of only certain > >chromosomes or parts of chromosomes of a set of plants and based solely > >on the differences in those parts of the DNA be able to adequately > >determine quantitatively when two species ought to be classed in the > >same genus or not. > > > >If I have to, I'll do the reverse of what the nurseries do and put the > >lumped genus name in parentheses on my plant labels next to the > >original, and IMHO better, genus name... ;-) > >All my opinion, of course. > >--Lee Poulsen > >Pasadena area, California, USDA Zone 9-10 > > > > > >On Jan 12, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Mary Sue Ittner wrote: > >>Julian and I have been communicating privately about Polyxena as I had > >>a plant (grown as sp. #2) that bloomed and I wanted confirmation for > >>what I thought it might be. I hadn't shared this with the group as I > >>intended to do something with the Polyxena wiki page first and haven't > >>found the time or decided exactly what. Polyxena has been transferred > >>to Lachenalia by Manning, Goldblatt and Fay. Here is the resource: > >> J.C. Manning, P. Goldblatt & M.F. Fay, "A revised generic synopsis of > >>Hyacinthaceae in sub-Saharan Africa, including new combinations and > >>the new tribe Pseudoprospereae", Edinburgh Journal of Botany 60(3): > >>533-568 (2004). > >> > >>Julian wrote to me: > >> "The article discusses an unpublished DNA study by the same authors, > >>and their results suggest a giant taxonomic upheaval for most of the > >>family, and they made the necessary numerous new combinations. Apart > >>from the sinking of Polyxena into Lachenalia: Drimiopsis and Resnova > >>were sunk into Ledebouria; Albuca, Dipcadi, Galtonia, Neopatersonia, > >>and Pseudogaltonia were sunk into Ornithogalum; Litanthus, > >>Rhadamanthus, Rhodocodon, Schizobasis, Tenicroa, Thuranthos, and > >>Urginea were sunk into Drimia; and Whiteheadia sunk into Massonia. At > >>the same time, they recognise the splitting of Scilla, but only for > >>the southern African species; no comment was made on the Eurasian > >>species. I've also noticed a dozen or so taxonomic errors; for > >>example, Dipcadi glaucum was renamed Ornithogalum magnum, which is a > >>name already used for an different species of Ornithogalum. All the > >>new combinations can be found doing an IPNI search > >><http://www.ipni.org/ipni/query_ipni.html>http://www.ipni.org/ipni/ > >>query_ipni.html, making sure that both IK and GCI extended options are > >>selected." > >> > >>I don't know if South African bulb enthusiasts are going along with > >>all these changes. I suppose I'll need to write a note on some of our > >>wiki pages explaining the proposed changes . Sigh. It is hard to keep > >>up with all of this. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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