Arum - naming a Group
Jane McGary (Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:52:13 PDT)

John Grimshaw wrote,
This subject has been frequently discussed here. While it is indeed true

Because I can't do such research and present such arguments, when I'm
confronted with a group of plants that I grow for which the taxonomy is
currently controversial, I think it's best, when publishing a garden
article or offering them for sale, to take the following steps:
(1) Point out that a controversy exists at the date of writing, and
possibly has existed for some years.
(2) Identify the source of the plant under discussion or offer, from which
the name you may choose to give first position to has been derived; and
point out any published authority on which you're relying for names.
(3) Give as many synonyms as may be appropriate (not very obsolete ones,
but those that may be seen in fairly recent literature).
(4) Perform a clear rhetorical throwing up of the hands and cast the
decision onto whatever classification may come to be accepted in the
future, or onto the preferences of your readers/buyers.

This is essentially the procedure I have followed for several years in
offering Narcissus species in my bulb list, a genus in which two distinct
schools of thought on classification presently coexist. I haven't yet
decided what to do about Scilla; I expect some of Speta's new (or revived)
genera will "stick," but perhaps not all will, so "Scilla" will continue to
appear in my list as at least a synonym.

Annoyance at innovations that don't seem to be useful is probably a
universal human characteristic, but botanists are at least less annoying
than the software designers at Microsoft.

Jane McGary
Editor, NARGS