Dear Fred: For what it is worth, my opinion is that molecular differences should NOT trump floral form. Looking down the road, I can see problems if molecular differences rule. Such information is valuable, no doubt about it, but I feel such should be in a separate classification, or table or whatever, not mixed in with, and take the place of floral form. If such continues I can see difficulty in the identification of plants in the field. A new, separate classification is required, such to be used by those who can use and have need of it, but not for, or as the rule, for practical identification. Perhaps someone could make a name for him/herself by tackling this, you perhaps? Cheers, John e. Bryan boutin wrote: > > For further comments on Manning and Goldblatt's lumping together of genera > and species based on molecular evidence I suggest referring back to Harold > Koopowitz's comments in January of this year: [pbs] Scilla and taxonomic > changes. > > Personally I feel that it is good to know that Drimiopsis is very close to > Ledebouria based on molecular evidence, but should Drimiopsis be merged into > Ledebouria, ignoring what seem to be visually very different flower forms. > Should molecular evidence trump floral form? > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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