Actually, the one thing that I would like to see would be more formal input into APONAT from overseas - this might help avoid situations such as the Americans splitting Aster into smaller genera and the RHS retaining Aster. Graham Rice Milford, PA 6in of snow forcast tomorrow night - enough! >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Utf-7"; reply-type=original >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >While agreing entirely with Chris Whitehouse's post, I think it's >important to make it clear that although the Royal Horticultural >Society's APONAT Panel is a major influence in horticutural >taxonomy, the 'rulebooks' for both the Botanical and Cultivated >Plant Codes are derived by consensus at international meetings of >botanists and horticultural taxonomists - not some devious British >plot to dominate the world of plants. > >John Grimshaw > > > >Dr John M. Grimshaw >Sycamore Cottage >Colesbourne >Nr Cheltenham >Gloucestershire GL53 9NP > >Tel. 01242 870567 > >COLESBOURNE PARK OPEN DAYS 2007 >Easter Monday 9 April, Arboretum Weekend 15-16 September >Gates open 1pm, last entry 4 pm >website: http://www.colesbournegardens.org.uk/ > >----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHERW" ><christopherwhitehouse@rhs.org.uk> >To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:08 AM >Subject: Re: [pbs] pbs Digest, Vol 51, Issue 9 > > >>This is why the work of the RHS Advisory Panel on Nomenclature and >>Taxonomy (APONAT), whose advice informs the use of names in The RHS >>PlantFinder, is so valuable. Not everyone agrees with their >>judgements but it seems to me that the existence of a freely >>available publication (and I mean free - >>http://rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantfinder.asp/) standardising >>the names of plants in horticulture the world over is invaluable. > >>What's more the minutes of the meetings of APONAT are now available >>for all to read online here: >>http://rhs.org.uk/About/Committee/…. >>And they welcome comments and information about individual issues. > >As secretary to APONAT, I would very much like to thank Graham for >pointing out to the wider horticultural world the work that this panel >does for the RHS and the horticultural community in general. I would >certainly like to emphasise the main reason for its existence is to >provide the RHS with a standardised taxonomy for all our publications >and work, and it is not there to force everyone else to agree with it. >As John has pointed out in the discussion of Amaryllis and Hippeastrum, >there are two aspects to every horticultural name: a nomenclatural and a >taxonomic. Everyone needs to follow the nomenclatural rules appropriate >for that name (whether according to the Botanical Code or the Cultivated >Plant Code) if there is not going to be anarchy in plant names. These >rules include priority of the name, valid publication, correct spelling >and conservation of the name (e.g. Amaryllis), etc. However, nobody is >obliged to follow the taxonomic aspect of a name, although as John and >Graham remind us, we should probably have a strong argument for >dismissing someone's well-reasoned consideration of a name change. >APONAT makes decisions on both aspects and the minutes need to be read >with this in mind. > >The RHS Plant Finder is certainly a useful resource for anyone just >wanting to follow a good taxonomy without making their own decisions for >every potential name change. However, the RHS Plant Finder was designed >for gardeners in the UK to locate plants at nurseries and the database >is actually based on the larger datasource of the RHS Horticultural >Database. This can be located at the following link: >http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summary.asp >The advantages of using this over the Plant Finder search page is that >more taxa are included (e.g. Lachenalia kliprandensis which is not found >in the RHS Plant Finder but is on the RHS Horticultural Database) and it >gives some indication of the status of the name. Take another example, >going a bit off topic but using Graham's example of Helleborus Wester >Flisk Group, this is given on the Horticultural Database as only >tentatively accepted. That basically means that there is nothing >obviously wrong with the name but it has not been investigated in detail >enough by the RHS botanists to confirm that it has been validly >described somewhere. With over 4000 plant names added to the database >each year, I hope you can understand that the RHS botanists do not get >time to check that there is a proper description for every name on the >database. > >If the members are interested then I can highlight if there are any >particular issues on the APONAT minutes relevant to bulbous plants once >they have been published to the internet. Over the last year there have >been small discussions on Nothoscordum, Typhonium & Sauromatum, and >South American Oxalis. The most relevant minutes available on the >internet are probably 4 August 2005, where Merwilla & Scilla and >Leucojum & Acis were briefly discussed. > >As Graham says, in using the databases, if you feel there are aspects of >it that are incorrect then please do get in touch we me and I can ask >APONAT if they ought to consider changing it. > >Chris > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: >09/04/2007 22:59 > > >_______________________________________________ >pbs mailing list >pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php