Well I bet there are a whole bunch of different genes and associated
regulators requred to give a leaf a midrib, and we'll very likely not know
what they are this century!

I agree, philosophically speaking.

Why on earth Bruyns stuck Monadenium into Euphorbia I'll never understand,
but I can tell a Brunsvigia from an Amaryllis ...

T> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:51:00 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To:
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] Sinking Brunsvigia> > Tim,>
Whatever the evidence employed, once substantiated monophyletic groups are>
worked out then the rank of those groups becomes "academic". Hence the>
subjective nature of taxonomic schemes and hence the everlasting hope of>
armchair botanists for more suitable arrangements.> Dylan> > On Dec 12, 2007
9:45 PM, Tim Harvey <zigur@hotmail.com> wrote:> > >> > Oh, I see another
genus akin to Euphorbia in the making! I believe some> > investigation of
these relationships have been done at the DNA level, though> > I regard such
data as important as other physical descriptors.> >> > T> Date: Wed, 12 Dec
2007 19:40:02 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To:> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [pbs] Sinking Brunsvigia> > 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 wait> > ing 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>

http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> >> >
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >>> >
_______________________________________________> pbs mailing list>> >
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php>> >
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >
_______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> >
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> >
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >>
_______________________________________________> pbs mailing list>
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php>
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/