IAS Aroid Quasi Forum

About Aroid-L
 This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.

  taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy
From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.25 at 08:46:15(6877)

Wilbert's email concerning cultons and cultonomy has got me to
thinking (well, something had to) that with the leaps in techniques
and tools available to taxonomists that have been made in the past
decade it might be time to review what we call ourselves, based on
what we do.

From: "D.J. Leedy" djleedy at netex.quik.com> on 2001.06.25 at 17:51:44(6881)
Okay, I'll play.

If you bred a taxonomist with a phylogenist would you get a phyllotaxonomist
(one who studies the arrangement of leaves on a stem and in relation to one

Is this hybridizing, line breeding or inbreeding?

David Leedy

From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.26 at 08:28:26(6885)

Interesting point. Much depends on whether taxonomy, phylogeny,
etc. are gene-driven and thus inheritable or whether they are leant
life-skills and thus not inheritable. If the latter, you'd have
absolutely no guarantee that the offspring of a hybridization
programme would display the traits (or a mix of the traits) of the
parents - unless of course one subscribes to the Lamarckian
School in which case one might believe it possible.

Okay, I'll play.

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.26 at 14:01:31(6889)
David, David, don't you know the difference between a phylogenist and a


From: Steve Marak samarak at arachne.uark.edu> on 2001.06.26 at 22:37:49(6894)
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Peter Boyce wrote:

> My primary interest is in elucidating species and genera ...
> I am a taxonomist.
> I have a student who uses the taxa I recognize ... this
> process is called phylogenetics ... Is she, therefore, a phylogenist?
> Wilbert has an active interest in cultivated manifestations of taxa.
> These are called cultons. Is Wilbert thus a cultonomist?

And since my primary interest in and use of the nomenclatural system is to
communicate clearly with others of similar interest, would that make me a
communicant? I do often feel there is a religious flavor about it all.

(If I had the time, I would devote myself to an uprising of gardeners,
horticulturists, ecologists, etc. worldwide, to form a comradeship and
overthrow the elitist aristocracy and return control of the naming system
to the people!

Well, maybe I'd just make it more rational.)

Seriously, though, however silly the system under which you all must
labor, and whatever name you choose for the rose, the breadth of knowledge
of many of the experts on this list shows through, and continues to
impress me on a regular basis.


From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.27 at 08:47:36(6901)
Hi Steve

I sympathize (to an extent) in that 'our' system can be tricky to
master, but we do follow the rules (International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature) and are (mostly successfully) self-regulating.

Sadly (as Wilbert and many more, I am sure, will attest), some of
the MOST awful botanical naming blunders are those published by
enthusiastic 'amateur systematist-hortculturists' . If anyone out
there is into cacti, or orchids, they will no only too well just what a
hash has been made of the naming by these folks.


From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 16:36:07(6915)
In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 5:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:

<< David, David, don't you know the difference between a phylogenist and a

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.