So we're back at discussing in the open list? Mind your Adresses, Jane ;-) Now that I've read it, here's what I get from that paper: The trouble with tribe Hippeastreae is that it's not an achestral tree to describe, but a net of species - common ancestors develop in different directions, split again and again, but also recombine via fertile hybrids that evolve into new species. Lets sort this: lets say, two populations of the ancestor species ZERO are seperated and evolve into species A and B. Another flood, another landslide, both populations split again, forming over hundreds of generations the new species A1, A2, B1 and B2. Geographies change again, species A2 and B2 meet and form the extremly successful hybrid AB which replaces both parent species and over generations stabilizes as new species. In AB, a certain aspect of A is morphologically dominant, lets say several flowers over just one. The age of humans dawns, and we find the similar A1 and AB, and a different looking B1, thats why we say [A1 and AB] is of genus A, [B1] is of genus B. That brings us through the age of morphology. But looking at DNA, we find clear traces of the B ancestor in AB. With the credo of monophyly, that each member of a genus has to share their ancestors, we cant define the [A1 AB] genus, because AB has an ancestor that is no anchestor of A1. So we can either give every species their own genus [A1] [AB] and [B1] or put them all in one [A1 AB B1], honouring the really ancient parent ZERO. The Authors Garcia, Meerow et al are somewhat in favor of the latter one by reducing the varieties to Rhodolirium, Phycella,Traubia,Emerolirion (new),Hippeastrum and Zephyrantes, and removing Eithea, Placea, Rhodophiala, Habranthus and Sprekelia, leaving a subgenus system up to discussion which could be changed at any time without changing binominal designations. Still, they're pointing out that another team, Christenhusz et al (2018), has thrown the whole tribe into one Genus (so it could be worse), ignoring a few Meerow&Garcia papers of recent years - that's where the paper got (for me) a certain undertone of being miffed personally. So I, too, guess that this will stay in flux, maybe even up until some big authority develops a strategy for sorting out non-linear heritage. Lets just hope we won't end up with Genus Monocotia and Dicotia... I stay with my proposal: write a page describing the discussion, but no reorganization of wiki pages yet - how are we to know if Meerow&Garcia will win over Christenhusz for now? Martin Am 18.01.2020 um 18:52 schrieb Jane McGary: > First, note the spelling correction in the subject line. If you type > in your subject lines, please double-check so that archive searches > will turn up all the right posts. That's 50 years of editing speaking. > > I agree with Mary Sue's policy of waiting to see how widely revisions > become accepted. As she says, they should be noted in an edit to the > introductory paragraph of the relevant genus, with a citation of the > appropriate article or monograph. I haven't followed the meanderings > of the Scilla revision by Speta but must see what the current view is. > Some of his revisions made a lot of sense to me as a mere observer and > grower, such as Prospero for Scilla autumnalis and its close > relatives, but others seemed gratuitous (and who wants to call a > flower "Schnarfia"?). > > Jane McGary, Portland, Oregon, USA -- Martin ---------------------------------------------- Southern Germany Likely zone 7a _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…