Hello Leo, you are absolutely right: "we name species based on differences in plant structures, not geography". To name species based on differences in geography is sometimes a first approach, a rough guess, but not taxonomy. A mere geographic expert is no botanic expert. Nevertheless geography is often a very helpful tool for identifications in addition to plant structures, especially as a critical check, whether the locality fits into the pattern of the known distribution of the identified name. I remember your helpful comments on localities earlier this year, on Albuca sp. Augrabies Hills and especially on Albuca navicula when you traced the very rare plant back to dear old John Lavranos' collection, from whom we have by the way several Albucas in cultivation. Hi All of the chorus on *locality data*, Thus, the locality should never replace the morphological = structural identification, but it should be always retained when available and passed down with the plant. I am impressed how clear many of you see this importance. I have a dream: For all Wiki pictures the locality should be given or at least the quarter degree square (QDS) for plants from Southern Africa. For many Wiki pictures the locality and the photographer is given in a satisfactory way, but in the great majority of e.g. Albuca and Massonia pictures the locality is not given, even if the photographer knows well the in situ place. Of course the locality of rare and endangered plants should never be given in a precise way, but the QDS given, will never be a danger for the population. A QDS has a size of more 500 square kilometres = more than half the size of the Cape Peninsula or more than half the size of Germany's capital Berlin. Cultivated plant from the Garden X, as sometimes given for Wiki pictures is far better than nothing or cultivated plant of unknown origin is better than a note about the distribution area of the species. Hi Chad Miller, when you introduced yourself in January this year you wrote: "I am looking forward to continuing research on geophytes (so if anyone has something that they think would be interesting, I am always entertaining new research ideas". Do you have in the mean time a full research program? If not yet, you might think about building up a database about the localities of rare and interesting bulbs of wild origin. I could contribute some clonotypes = vegetative offsprings of the type collection, e.g. the clonotype of Cyrtanthus montanus R.A.Dyer, which we got from the author from the window board of his office in the year after its description. Cheers Dietrich Am 30.10.2012 22:42, schrieb Leo A. Martin: > My point was that the expert, even after examining the plant, was unable > to identify a species without knowing where he was. If that is the case, > how valid can the separation of this genus into species be? I have been > led to believe we name species based on differences in plant structures, > not geography. > > Leo Martin > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/