Leo, Jim-- I've also felt it would be sensible to at least consider this merger. They are separated by seemingly non-profound details of the seeds and the leaves with midrib (Amaryllis) or without (Brunsvigia), whereas the traits in common are overwhelming. Is morphological homogeneity important in defining genera? How important? The same applies to the seemingly artificial distinction of Hessea from Strumaria, based on somewhat variable character states. Carpolyza has already been lumped under the latter. I suppose the taxonomists are happy to rely more on molecular data when the going gets tough regarding when to split and when to lump. Dylan On Dec 12, 2007 1:23 PM, Leo A. Martin <leo@possi.org> wrote: > > One other way to get more species: given the easy "hybridization" of > > Amaryllis and Brunsvigia, I've long been waiting for someone to combine > > those genera: the plants have already done it, now it's time for the > > taxonomists to catch up. > > > > Jim McKenney > > That would be great! Amaryllis (1753) is so much easier to grow than > Brunsvigia (1755)! > > Leo Martin > Phoenix Arizona USA > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >