I belong to a group fighting just such a name change (non-geophytic and off topic) where the morphology of the plants support the separate and long standing genus, but the genetic evidence links it closely to one species of a genus also long recognized as closely related. This is the Australian is it a dryandra or a banksia debate. They have published their results, renamed every plant in the genus with their name behind it and go about like it has been accepted even though the only herbarium that has recognized the change that I am aware of is run by one of the researchers proposing it. We are all hoping it won't fly but they are trying to push it through. Randy On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Alberto Castillo <ezeizabotgard@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > "or to > support theories of convenience to put their names behind a plant's." > > > My goodness, Randy! Do you think this is possible in the publication of > plants? > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > -- * * A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. - Thomas Paine --- * *