why scientists don't just give up the names battle

From: Lester Kallus lkallus at earthlink.net> on 2001.07.08 at 03:40:16(6975) I'd like to offer a differing opinion on the common versus scientific name. Professionally, I run into frustrations with bacteria names some of which are on their third name in the 21 years I've been working. Nevertheless, I do this professionally and so can keep up with it as long as they tell me ahead of time. Fortunately, the lay public doesn't use these names so there's no problem. If they did, we might have to reevaluate our position on changing the names. Periodically, I've read letters here indicating that some plant I had never heard of had been renamed to another genus that I also had never heard of. This didn't affect me and won't affect most other folks. There's no problem if few know about it. It's the same as when a bacteria is renamed by the microbiological and medical community. The problem does happen, though, when it's a plant that's commonly grown. If the vast majority of people misidentify Pothos and only a small number of botanists and horticulturists can accurately identify them, how complex would it be to tell the botanists and horticulturists to find a new name for the true Pothos and to allow the previously misidentified Pothos to correctly assume the name? I suspect it would be less complex to re-educate the botanists and horticulturists than it would the rest of the "uneducated" public. +More Unfortunately, though, the botanists are too stubborn and insist that the rest of the world follow their lead. Come on now - if it's been misidentified for 200 years and if few people would recognize the true Pothos - why not just change the name of the true Pothos and let everyone be right? Could it possibly be people taking pleasure in calling others wrong? Les

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.07.08 at 16:15:43(6984) C?mon, guys... I know you must be driving crazy with all the names changing all the time, but I don?t think we should try to freeze an evolving science. I know sometimes it is painful when you have to change your concepts, but it is part of the life. The advent of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature can be considered an important event in Botany, because Botany looked like the Tower of Babel before it. The Code were designed to keep stability of names, so we use the concept of priority. The correct name is the first effectively published. The circunscription of names can change, but they follow rules that can be understood if you want. Some people think it would be great if we could use the "easiest" name, instead of the earliest. I agree it would make some things easier, but we would implode the stability. Who has to decide when something has to change? What if someone is not happy? Can He/she change it again? Believe me: If there we had not the Code, the names would change even more... Let?s face it. We don?t have to write in our scientific books that primitive humans had dinossaurs as pets just because almost everybody in world really thinks it is true (blame Fred Flintstone!). Any misconception should be corrected, even when more than half of the humans think it is true. And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything soon! Is plant taxonomy for the whole Mankind or just for Americans? We are paid to keep the names well applied, so we do it. If you want imutable names, don?t use Linnean binomials! Call your plant Sliurneht, or Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... If you want to be scientific (that is what you are doing when you say Pothos or Calla) you have to follow the law (i.e., the Code). People has used this pseudoscience to sell plants. Scientific names can rise the prices, because they give the impression that they know exactly what they are selling, but it isn?t true. If plant sellers are not able to offer a correct Linnean name for the plants they sell, they SHOULD NOT USE IT, or they are just fooling people. I can give you an example: Let?s suppose you have bought something called Calla, a pink Calla. You can see some information about it on internet. It says Calla is a circunboreal genus with only one species that use to grow in bogs. So you killed your only Zantedeschia rehmanii treating it like it was Calla palustris... That?s the problem in having horticultural names being used like this... Many of you in Aroid-L know that I am a plant taxonomist that do not love all the aspects of the linnean taxonomy, mainly because it is not efficient in dealing with evolving things. However, it is the best way we have to describe biodiversity, so I still use it. I agree that some of plant taxonomists change names for some weird vanity, but most of us are working hard to make the overwhelming diversity more understandable. Do not blame us. Nature itself was already pretty confused when we arrived with the tags! It is easy when you consider a few plants you have in your garden, but try to face the hell in the wild... Nomenclatural cheers, Eduardo. +More >From: Lester Kallus >Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org >To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L >Subject: why scientists don't just give up the names battle >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:40:14 -0500 (CDT) > >I'd like to offer a differing opinion on the common versus scientific >name. Professionally, I run into frustrations with bacteria names some of >which are on their third name in the 21 years I've been >working. Nevertheless, I do this professionally and so can keep up with it >as long as they tell me ahead of time. Fortunately, the lay public doesn't >use these names so there's no problem. If they did, we might have to >reevaluate our position on changing the names. > >Periodically, I've read letters here indicating that some plant I had never >heard of had been renamed to another genus that I also had never heard >of. This didn't affect me and won't affect most other folks. There's no >problem if few know about it. It's the same as when a bacteria is renamed >by the microbiological and medical community. The problem does happen, >though, when it's a plant that's commonly grown. > >If the vast majority of people misidentify Pothos and only a small number >of botanists and horticulturists can accurately identify them, how complex >would it be to tell the botanists and horticulturists to find a new name >for the true Pothos and to allow the previously misidentified Pothos to >correctly assume the name? I suspect it would be less complex to >re-educate the botanists and horticulturists than it would the rest of the >"uneducated" public. > >Unfortunately, though, the botanists are too stubborn and insist that the >rest of the world follow their lead. Come on now - if it's been >misidentified for 200 years and if few people would recognize the true >Pothos - why not just change the name of the true Pothos and let everyone >be right? Could it possibly be people taking pleasure in calling others >wrong? > Les > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.07.09 at 14:22:26(6987) -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Sunday, July 08, 2001 12:15 PM Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle Bravo!!!! VERY well said, Eduardo! You could not have said it any clearer, even in 'Tarzan' English! Julius +More >>C?mon, guys... I know you must be driving crazy with all the names changing all the time, but I don?t think we should try to freeze an evolving science. I know sometimes it is painful when you have to change your concepts, but it is part of the life. The advent of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature can be considered an important event in Botany, because Botany looked like the Tower of Babel before it. The Code were designed to keep stability of names, so we use the concept of priority. The correct name is the first effectively published. The circunscription of names can change, but they follow rules that can be understood if you want. Some people think it would be great if we could use the "easiest" name, instead of the earliest. I agree it would make some things easier, but we would implode the stability. Who has to decide when something has to change? What if someone is not happy? Can He/she change it again? Believe me: If there we had not the Code, the names would change even more... Let?s face it. We don?t have to write in our scientific books that primitive humans had dinossaurs as pets just because almost everybody in world really thinks it is true (blame Fred Flintstone!). Any misconception should be corrected, even when more than half of the humans think it is true. And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything soon! Is plant taxonomy for the whole Mankind or just for Americans? We are paid to keep the names well applied, so we do it. If you want imutable names, don?t use Linnean binomials! Call your plant Sliurneht, or Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... If you want to be scientific (that is what you are doing when you say Pothos or Calla) you have to follow the law (i.e., the Code). People has used this pseudoscience to sell plants. Scientific names can rise the prices, because they give the impression that they know exactly what they are selling, but it isn?t true. If plant sellers are not able to offer a correct Linnean name for the plants they sell, they SHOULD NOT USE IT, or they are just fooling people. I can give you an example: Let?s suppose you have bought something called Calla, a pink Calla. You can see some information about it on internet. It says Calla is a circunboreal genus with only one species that use to grow in bogs. So you killed your only Zantedeschia rehmanii treating it like it was Calla palustris... That?s the problem in having horticultural names being used like this... Many of you in Aroid-L know that I am a plant taxonomist that do not love all the aspects of the linnean taxonomy, mainly because it is not efficient in dealing with evolving things. However, it is the best way we have to describe biodiversity, so I still use it. I agree that some of plant taxonomists change names for some weird vanity, but most of us are working hard to make the overwhelming diversity more understandable. Do not blame us. Nature itself was already pretty confused when we arrived with the tags! It is easy when you consider a few plants you have in your garden, but try to face the hell in the wild... Nomenclatural cheers, Eduardo.<<

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.09 at 14:24:01(6988) Just perhaps Les has hit the nail on the head. If those in the minority, just give a wee bit with their rigidity, they could have what they basically want. If that is not acceptable, then the efforts of forcing upon the multitude can continue with current equal success. Another words, give up the rigidity that there is only one way. There are many ways to skin a cat if that is what you so choose to do. Botanics serves a select group basically and it does a reasonably good job of it. I don't think we are going to teach chemistry to the masses and in the same respect, I don't think we are going to teach a great deal of botanics to the masses. All most want is a pretty plant, a different plant, a colorful plant, a whatever plant. They don't care what you call it. If you make the name so difficult for them, they will just revert to what they knew it as before. Yes, a few of us like to know what we are looking at in botanical terms, but let's face it, not many do. Betsy +More Lester Kallus wrote: > I'd like to offer a differing opinion on the common versus scientific > name. Professionally, I run into frustrations with bacteria names some of > which are on their third name in the 21 years I've been > working. Nevertheless, I do this professionally and so can keep up with it > as long as they tell me ahead of time. Fortunately, the lay public doesn't > use these names so there's no problem. If they did, we might have to > reevaluate our position on changing the names. > > Periodically, I've read letters here indicating that some plant I had never > heard of had been renamed to another genus that I also had never heard > of. This didn't affect me and won't affect most other folks. There's no > problem if few know about it. It's the same as when a bacteria is renamed > by the microbiological and medical community. The problem does happen, > though, when it's a plant that's commonly grown. > > If the vast majority of people misidentify Pothos and only a small number > of botanists and horticulturists can accurately identify them, how complex > would it be to tell the botanists and horticulturists to find a new name > for the true Pothos and to allow the previously misidentified Pothos to > correctly assume the name? I suspect it would be less complex to > re-educate the botanists and horticulturists than it would the rest of the > "uneducated" public. > > Unfortunately, though, the botanists are too stubborn and insist that the > rest of the world follow their lead. Come on now - if it's been > misidentified for 200 years and if few people would recognize the true > Pothos - why not just change the name of the true Pothos and let everyone > be right? Could it possibly be people taking pleasure in calling others wrong? > Les

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.09 at 14:24:55(6989) Botanical nomenclature has a perfect place. As you say it is not perfect in all of its aspect, but it does serve a valid place in science. Is the average person who deals with plants, dealing in science? Or is he dealing with likes, dislikes, wants, and needs as far as plants go? He wants a plant that will grow in the dark, he wants a plant that takes full sun, he wants a plant that will grow in wet soil, he wants a plant that will live with bad drainage, he wants a plant because he likes the plant..... Does any of that require the scientific botanical nomenclature? Certainly knowing such might help him know if the plant was what he desired or needed, but there may well be a simpler way .... someone or a tag tells him what he needs to know or what he sees pleases his senses, or the smell tickles his nose. I don't think the botanical name is going to add much to his deliberations. Scientists and some plant enthusiasts want to know plant names and that is great. Some of us like to grow the plants and if we have a tidbit of nomenclature to go along with it, super. Some just love the plants. Let's consider that some need the clarification of nomenclature, some want it, and some don't give a darn and maybe move on to something new. Betsy +More Eduardo Goncalves wrote: > C?mon, guys... > > I know you must be driving crazy with all the names changing all the > time, but I don?t think we should try to freeze an evolving science. I know > sometimes it is painful when you have to change your concepts, but it is > part of the life. > The advent of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature can be > considered an important event in Botany, because Botany looked like the > Tower of Babel before it. The Code were designed to keep stability of names, > so we use the concept of priority. The correct name is the first effectively > published. The circunscription of names can change, but they follow rules > that can be understood if you want. > Some people think it would be great if we could use the "easiest" name, > instead of the earliest. I agree it would make some things easier, but we > would implode the stability. Who has to decide when something has to change? > What if someone is not happy? Can He/she change it again? Believe me: If > there we had not the Code, the names would change even more... > Let?s face it. We don?t have to write in our scientific books that > primitive humans had dinossaurs as pets just because almost everybody in > world really thinks it is true (blame Fred Flintstone!). Any misconception > should be corrected, even when more than half of the humans think it is > true. And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people > call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything > soon! Is plant taxonomy for the whole Mankind or just for Americans? > We are paid to keep the names well applied, so we do it. If you want > imutable names, don?t use Linnean binomials! Call your plant Sliurneht, or > Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... If you want to be scientific (that is what > you are doing when you say Pothos or Calla) you have to follow the law > (i.e., the Code). People has used this pseudoscience to sell plants. > Scientific names can rise the prices, because they give the impression that > they know exactly what they are selling, but it isn?t true. If plant sellers > are not able to offer a correct Linnean name for the plants they sell, they > SHOULD NOT USE IT, or they are just fooling people. > I can give you an example: Let?s suppose you have bought something called > Calla, a pink Calla. You can see some information about it on internet. It > says Calla is a circunboreal genus with only one species that use to grow in > bogs. So you killed your only Zantedeschia rehmanii treating it like it was > Calla palustris... That?s the problem in having horticultural names being > used like this... > Many of you in Aroid-L know that I am a plant taxonomist that do not love > all the aspects of the linnean taxonomy, mainly because it is not efficient > in dealing with evolving things. However, it is the best way we have to > describe biodiversity, so I still use it. > I agree that some of plant taxonomists change names for some weird > vanity, but most of us are working hard to make the overwhelming diversity > more understandable. Do not blame us. Nature itself was already pretty > confused when we arrived with the tags! It is easy when you consider a few > plants you have in your garden, but try to face the hell in the wild... > > Nomenclatural cheers, > > Eduardo. > > >From: Lester Kallus > >Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org > >To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > >Subject: why scientists don't just give up the names battle > >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:40:14 -0500 (CDT) > > > >I'd like to offer a differing opinion on the common versus scientific > >name. Professionally, I run into frustrations with bacteria names some of > >which are on their third name in the 21 years I've been > >working. Nevertheless, I do this professionally and so can keep up with it > >as long as they tell me ahead of time. Fortunately, the lay public doesn't > >use these names so there's no problem. If they did, we might have to > >reevaluate our position on changing the names. > > > >Periodically, I've read letters here indicating that some plant I had never > >heard of had been renamed to another genus that I also had never heard > >of. This didn't affect me and won't affect most other folks. There's no > >problem if few know about it. It's the same as when a bacteria is renamed > >by the microbiological and medical community. The problem does happen, > >though, when it's a plant that's commonly grown. > > > >If the vast majority of people misidentify Pothos and only a small number > >of botanists and horticulturists can accurately identify them, how complex > >would it be to tell the botanists and horticulturists to find a new name > >for the true Pothos and to allow the previously misidentified Pothos to > >correctly assume the name? I suspect it would be less complex to > >re-educate the botanists and horticulturists than it would the rest of the > >"uneducated" public. > > > >Unfortunately, though, the botanists are too stubborn and insist that the > >rest of the world follow their lead. Come on now - if it's been > >misidentified for 200 years and if few people would recognize the true > >Pothos - why not just change the name of the true Pothos and let everyone > >be right? Could it possibly be people taking pleasure in calling others > >wrong? > > Les > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: Lester Kallus lkallus at earthlink.net> on 2001.07.09 at 14:25:48(6990) On the contrary - I'm absolutely convinced (at least with bacteria) that there's an clandestine international committee that meets periodically to arbitrarily change the names of bacteria just to keep the rest of the world confused. +More Les

From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.07.10 at 00:03:17(6995) This is descending into a discussion between people who are simply not talking the "same language". Taxonomists arnd hobbyists are not at odds with one another. +More Scientific names reflect the relationships between and among organisms. Once a phylogenetic error has been detected the name is changed to reflect the new hierarchy. By contrast, common names are an effort to assign a permanent literary reference to a common plant in cultivation. Barring the difficulties of alphabets, linguistics and regional dialects, even the common names are scarcely permanent in usage. They cannot be equated nor used to achieve the same end. Jim Langhammer

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.07.10 at 00:03:53(6997) Dear Les, Maybe you have seen "The X-Files" too much!!! We don?t have enough time for clandestine comittees... Try to understand how we feel preparing a Flora of a poorly collected area from the tropical biodiversity hell. We are not arbitrarily confusing people... we are confused ourselves!!!! Take me to your leader, Eduardo +More (Plant taxonomist from Outer Space) > >On the contrary - I'm absolutely convinced (at least with bacteria) that >there's an clandestine international committee that meets periodically to >arbitrarily change the names of bacteria just to keep the rest of the world >confused. > > Les > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.07.10 at 00:04:57(7002) Hi, Betsy & other Fangs! Good to see that you are AWWWWWWWWL agreeing! The first thing any Chinaman who visits here asks is wot's its name, and if you are silly & not serious, they say, No, its REAL name I mean please! Maybe you don't have that problem when you just keep anything you like? You may not already know but I only keep (watch my lips)SPA-THI-PHY-LLUM. I have to know what I'm growing for all the people who'll want to know what my plants are & where they came from after I'm dead. Its a religious thing. And do Ye know today I got news of more bastards with funny names that I can't trace the parents of. Some are nearly fifty years old and they still don't know who their parents were! Come on, folks, you'd like your offsprings offsprings offspring to know what your real name was in fifty years even if you'd changed it by deed poll several times, and even if some people had nicknamed you "Fred". YOU know what your real names are but they might not. VERY sad. Let the posh name with the nickname be on the supermarket pot, then you can repot it and can call it what you like but for Gawds sake don't let it breed. If you do, please don't start growing & hybridising Peace Lilies, PLEASE! Over one hundred years of renaming then propagating, renaming & even HYBRIDISING & renaming renaming and.... Aliases, aliases! Oh, oh, I faint! Please if you have any Spaths straight from the wild, you know where they came from, not just seeds, then there's only one perfect DNA identifiable place please....HERE.....Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Can I join in the fight or shall I be an unfair referee? Ronny (alias Ron, Green Maverick, Devil's Advocate, Green Fog, Spath Cobra ad inf) +More (Posh Linnaean Name = Ron Iles) I will be on my tooooombstone forever. I'm glad you are all friends & understand more what I'm trying to say, you do don't you? > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: Jill Bell godjillab at home.com> on 2001.07.10 at 03:36:19(7003) on 7/9/01 10:24 AM, Betsy Feuerstein at ecuador@midsouth.rr.com wrote: I would like to reply to this discussion, being a complete amateur as a horticulturist in the world of botanists and taxonomists. I have been attracted to plants and specifically those of the aroid family for almost thirty years. When I first found myself in garden centers and plant shops asking questions and then buying horticultural dictionaries and books and finally Exotica, I realized that the "common name" of a plant had nothing to do with what it was, it was usually just a very low level description. In essence, it told me nothing. I started to learn and remember the Greek and Latin names for the plants and learned about genus and family and species, and started to see an organizational relationship. The names alone were able to get this information across to me, certainly there was too much diversity in the foliage and such for me to have garnered this knowledge any other way. For people who "just want a plant" for their table or window, a purple passion would be perfect - I just as soon order one in a bar. There needs to be no more information for this sort of application. But for those that cross the line, and need to organize, I can see no better way but this particular order out of chaos. It is the informational architecture that can be universally understood, even by an amateur. Best Regards, -- Jill Bell +More Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography > Botanical nomenclature has a perfect place. As you say it is not perfect in > all > of its aspect, but it does serve a valid place in science. Is the average > person > who deals with plants, dealing in science? Or is he dealing with likes, > dislikes, wants, and needs as far as plants go? He wants a plant that will > grow > in the dark, he wants a plant that takes full sun, he wants a plant that will > grow in wet soil, he wants a plant that will live with bad drainage, he wants > a > plant because he likes the plant..... Does any of that require the scientific > botanical nomenclature? Certainly knowing such might help him know if the > plant > was what he desired or needed, but there may well be a simpler way .... > someone > or a tag tells him what he needs to know or what he sees pleases his senses, > or > the smell tickles his nose. I don't think the botanical name is going to add > much to his deliberations. > > Scientists and some plant enthusiasts want to know plant names and that is > great. Some of us like to grow the plants and if we have a tidbit of > nomenclature to go along with it, super. Some just love the plants. Let's > consider that some need the clarification of nomenclature, some want it, and > some don't give a darn and maybe move on to something new. > > Betsy > > Eduardo Goncalves wrote: > >> C?mon, guys... >> >> I know you must be driving crazy with all the names changing all the >> time, but I don?t think we should try to freeze an evolving science. I know >> sometimes it is painful when you have to change your concepts, but it is >> part of the life. >> The advent of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature can be >> considered an important event in Botany, because Botany looked like the >> Tower of Babel before it. The Code were designed to keep stability of names, >> so we use the concept of priority. The correct name is the first effectively >> published. The circunscription of names can change, but they follow rules >> that can be understood if you want. >> Some people think it would be great if we could use the "easiest" name, >> instead of the earliest. I agree it would make some things easier, but we >> would implode the stability. Who has to decide when something has to change? >> What if someone is not happy? Can He/she change it again? Believe me: If >> there we had not the Code, the names would change even more... >> Let?s face it. We don?t have to write in our scientific books that >> primitive humans had dinossaurs as pets just because almost everybody in >> world really thinks it is true (blame Fred Flintstone!). Any misconception >> should be corrected, even when more than half of the humans think it is >> true. And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people >> call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything >> soon! Is plant taxonomy for the whole Mankind or just for Americans? >> We are paid to keep the names well applied, so we do it. If you want >> imutable names, don?t use Linnean binomials! Call your plant Sliurneht, or >> Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... If you want to be scientific (that is what >> you are doing when you say Pothos or Calla) you have to follow the law >> (i.e., the Code). People has used this pseudoscience to sell plants. >> Scientific names can rise the prices, because they give the impression that >> they know exactly what they are selling, but it isn?t true. If plant sellers >> are not able to offer a correct Linnean name for the plants they sell, they >> SHOULD NOT USE IT, or they are just fooling people. >> I can give you an example: Let?s suppose you have bought something called >> Calla, a pink Calla. You can see some information about it on internet. It >> says Calla is a circunboreal genus with only one species that use to grow in >> bogs. So you killed your only Zantedeschia rehmanii treating it like it was >> Calla palustris... That?s the problem in having horticultural names being >> used like this... >> Many of you in Aroid-L know that I am a plant taxonomist that do not love >> all the aspects of the linnean taxonomy, mainly because it is not efficient >> in dealing with evolving things. However, it is the best way we have to >> describe biodiversity, so I still use it. >> I agree that some of plant taxonomists change names for some weird >> vanity, but most of us are working hard to make the overwhelming diversity >> more understandable. Do not blame us. Nature itself was already pretty >> confused when we arrived with the tags! It is easy when you consider a few >> plants you have in your garden, but try to face the hell in the wild... >> >> Nomenclatural cheers, >> >> Eduardo. >> >>> From: Lester Kallus >>> Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org >>> To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L >>> Subject: why scientists don't just give up the names battle >>> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:40:14 -0500 (CDT) >>> >>> I'd like to offer a differing opinion on the common versus scientific >>> name. Professionally, I run into frustrations with bacteria names some of >>> which are on their third name in the 21 years I've been >>> working. Nevertheless, I do this professionally and so can keep up with it >>> as long as they tell me ahead of time. Fortunately, the lay public doesn't >>> use these names so there's no problem. If they did, we might have to >>> reevaluate our position on changing the names. >>> >>> Periodically, I've read letters here indicating that some plant I had never >>> heard of had been renamed to another genus that I also had never heard >>> of. This didn't affect me and won't affect most other folks. There's no >>> problem if few know about it. It's the same as when a bacteria is renamed >>> by the microbiological and medical community. The problem does happen, >>> though, when it's a plant that's commonly grown. >>> >>> If the vast majority of people misidentify Pothos and only a small number >>> of botanists and horticulturists can accurately identify them, how complex >>> would it be to tell the botanists and horticulturists to find a new name >>> for the true Pothos and to allow the previously misidentified Pothos to >>> correctly assume the name? I suspect it would be less complex to >>> re-educate the botanists and horticulturists than it would the rest of the >>> "uneducated" public. >>> >>> Unfortunately, though, the botanists are too stubborn and insist that the >>> rest of the world follow their lead. Come on now - if it's been >>> misidentified for 200 years and if few people would recognize the true >>> Pothos - why not just change the name of the true Pothos and let everyone >>> be right? Could it possibly be people taking pleasure in calling others >>> wrong? >>> Les >>> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2001.07.10 at 03:38:13(7005) I collect plants for many different reasons. I get different kicks out of different aspects of the deal. I am not a taxonomist, but I have a good knowledge of what they do and can sympathize with their plight. I also consider myself obsessed with many different groups of plants (anthurium, rhipsalis, gongora for examples). My pleasure in all of these aspects is one of learning and discovery. The aspect of plant collecting (and there are many) that gets me the most is the pursuit of a plant. To pursue a plant you must learn how various players play the game. To obtain a truly hard to obtain plant you have to have a certain amount of knowledge of common names and botanical names. Not only that but in some cases you need to know the history of a plant and the history of it's name or names. The taxonomist, no matter how many times a name changes, is really the only group of people who consistantly keep records of the plants in a way that ALL can understand and research........IF THEY KNOW and UNDERSTAND the rules. Including the literature. For the plant collector it is all a matter of degrees......If all you want to collect is Anthurium andreanum and it's many cultivars (or whatever they are) you only need a certain level and understanding of taxonomy, almost none. But if you are after Anthurium dressleri or A. cutucuense you would need to know much more.......and its' to the taxonomist and his/her literature that you must turn to find out were it grows, how it was discovered and lost and rediscovered, who has it, how did they get it, how do I get it from them or how do I get to it in habitat myself. This is to say that some collectors are happy with Anth. 'Lady Jane' and some aren't satisified until they have Anth. peltigerum, Anth. lentii, Anth. ovatifolium and all of the other Section Digitinervium that there are. These different levels of obsession require different levels of understanding of nomenclature. Some care alot and some care a little and some couldn't give a rat's toenail what the name is or who its closest cousin is. But regardless of your level of involvement, you cannot escape the taxonomists' literature. You do not have to play the game, but if you don't know the rules you can't break them very well. All of you are correct because you come from different points of view. Some are taxonomists ( they are excused as their hands are tied and they are supposed to act that way ), some are collectors of one narrow group of plants and others collect a wide range of plants. to each his own. NO ONE IS CORRECT who thinks that their way is the only way, or that people who don't conform are perpatrating some kind of horrible evil on the plants. Really, the genes and 95% of people who collect plants could care less what the name is. THe genes are only looking for a vessel and the people only want something beautiful and/or interesting in their lives. Neil

From: "Cooper, Susan L." SLCooper at scj.com> on 2001.07.10 at 14:10:02(7006) Good point, Jim. Your note about permanency reminded me about a comment someone made about the writer Stephen King: something to the effect that his books are popular now, but in 20-30 years (or less) they will be difficult to read due to the fact that he uses so many brand names. I just read a book of his where he kept mentioning a certain type of toy by name, and for half the book I had no idea of what he was talking about (the wooden paddle with a rubber band thing attached, with a rubber ball on the end). I'm only a hobbyist (and I wouldn't call my thumb green), and I still call Zantedeschia calla lilies sometimes, but when people mention voodoo lilies I have no idea what they are talking about! Susan Cooper +More -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:03 PM To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle This is descending into a discussion between people who are simply not talking the "same language". Taxonomists arnd hobbyists are not at odds with one another. Scientific names reflect the relationships between and among organisms. Once a phylogenetic error has been detected the name is changed to reflect the new hierarchy. By contrast, common names are an effort to assign a permanent literary reference to a common plant in cultivation. Barring the difficulties of alphabets, linguistics and regional dialects, even the common names are scarcely permanent in usage. They cannot be equated nor used to achieve the same end. Jim Langhammer

From: Jonathan Ertelt jonathan.ertelt at vanderbilt.edu> on 2001.07.10 at 19:13:21(7009) >Good point, Jim. Your note about permanency reminded me about a comment >someone made about the writer Stephen King: something to the effect that >his books are popular now, but in 20-30 years (or less) they will be >difficult to read due to the fact that he uses so many brand names. I just >read a book of his where he kept mentioning a certain type of toy by name, >and for half the book I had no idea of what he was talking about (the wooden >paddle with a rubber band thing attached, with a rubber ball on the end). > >I'm only a hobbyist (and I wouldn't call my thumb green), and I still call >Zantedeschia calla lilies sometimes, but when people mention voodoo lilies I >have no idea what they are talking about! >Susan Cooper Susan, A good point from you as well, and somewhat ironic that you should choose a common name which I have heard referring to at least four different genera. Quite honestly, if the scientific genus name has not been mentioned already, then most of the aroiders on the list couldn't be sure which plant(s) were being referred to by the common name 'voodoo lily' - they could assume, but with no guarantees. Thus the limited value of common names and how they're applied! Jonathan +More Jonathan Ertelt jonathan.ertelt@vanderbilt.edu Greenhouse Manager Vanderbilt University Biology Department Box 1812, Sta. B Nashville, TN 37235 (615) 322-4054

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.07.11 at 04:17:28(7011) In a message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:16:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Eduardo Goncalves" writes: << And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything +More soon! >> As an example of how, even in other languages, common names are not always taxonomically precise, Zheng and Lu (2000) use the common term "Taro," with various descriptors, for three different (though related) genera. Colocasia esculenta, they designate with characters meaning "Water Taro;" Alocasia macrorhiza, I am a little uncertain of the translation, but it is something like "Grandmother Taro;" Schismatoglottis calyptrata, they call "Village Taro;" and S. kotoensis they call "Orchid-Island Taro." So, just how DID the term "Pothos" come to be applied to Epipremnum mooreii (which I knew as Scindapsus)? Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.07.11 at 04:18:38(7012) In a message dated Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:38:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Neil Carroll writes: << I collect plants for many different reasons. ...THe genes are only looking for a vessel and the people only want something beautiful and/or interesting in their lives.>> +More Am I the only one who takes an interest in certain plants BECAUSE of their names? In the colud forest of Costa Rica grows a species of Peperomia whose binomial is P. hernandiifolia. As you who remember my name may have guessed, it was the plant's name I found intriguing (as well as the peltate leaves). And in seeking to learn the meaning of such a name, I was led to the unrelated genus Hernandia, in the family Hernandiaceae. Again, it is the name I found intriguing; the name served as the gateway to learn more. Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large

From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.07.11 at 14:55:13(7016) > >Am I the only one who takes an interest in certain plants BECAUSE of their names? In the colud forest of Costa Rica grows a species of Peperomia whose binomial is P. hernandiifolia. As you who remember my name may have guessed, it was the plant's name I found intriguing (as well as the peltate leaves). And in seeking to learn the meaning of such a name, I was led to the unrelated genus Hernandia, in the family Hernandiaceae. Again, it is the name I found intriguing; the name served as the gateway to learn more. > >Jason Hernandez Jason, I own Davallia tyermanni (Silver Hares Foot Fern) and Rhododendron tyermanii for exactly the same reasons. Have never been able to find out who the Tyerman was who discovered these species was though. Don't think that he/she was into aroids though . Have always loved Dracula vampira (Orchidaceae) for the name as well (particularly as it has hanging black flowers). Cheers. Paul Tyerman +More Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8 mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Crocus, Cyrtanthus, Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that doesn't move!!!!!

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.07.11 at 19:30:14(7020) -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:21 AM Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle In a message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:16:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, +More "Eduardo Goncalves" writes: << And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything soon! >> Good point Jason---and we have the Jamaican 'co co yams'!---NEW co co yam (with MANY species/vars. for the genus Xanthosoma), and 'OLD co co yams' with as many for the genus Colocasia, with the TRUE yams, genus Dioscoria creeping in from time to time! Let`s just be thankful for the scientific, binomial naming process! With that I KNOW what I eat!!! Julius ><> always taxonomically precise, Zheng and Lu (2000) use the common term "Taro," with various descriptors, for three different (though related) genera. Colocasia esculenta, they designate with characters meaning "Water Taro;" Alocasia macrorhiza, I am a little uncertain of the translation, but it is something like "Grandmother Taro;" Schismatoglottis calyptrata, they call "Village Taro;" and S. kotoensis they call "Orchid-Island Taro." So, just how DID the term "Pothos" come to be applied to Epipremnum mooreii (which I knew as Scindapsus)? Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large><><

From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.07.15 at 03:05:13(7040) In a message dated 7/9/2001 10:23:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, eduardo goncalves writes: Call your plant Sliurneht, or +More Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... hey, edu, i have a plant named catiripapo! whats' wrong with that? tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orchidspecies

From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.07.17 at 02:18:34(7051) That's why I got Peltoboykinia watanabe. Do you know what is the name of the cross of the genera Doritis with Gastorchis in the orchid family? ---- Gastritis! Still looking for a Clitoria, BWM +More Paul Tyerman @mobot.org on 07/11/2001 10:55:58 AM Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L cc: Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle > >Am I the only one who takes an interest in certain plants BECAUSE of their names? In the colud forest of Costa Rica grows a species of Peperomia whose binomial is P. hernandiifolia. As you who remember my name may have guessed, it was the plant's name I found intriguing (as well as the peltate leaves). And in seeking to learn the meaning of such a name, I was led to the unrelated genus Hernandia, in the family Hernandiaceae. Again, it is the name I found intriguing; the name served as the gateway to learn more. > >Jason Hernandez Jason, I own Davallia tyermanni (Silver Hares Foot Fern) and Rhododendron tyermanii for exactly the same reasons. Have never been able to find out who the Tyerman was who discovered these species was though. Don't think that he/she was into aroids though . Have always loved Dracula vampira (Orchidaceae) for the name as well (particularly as it has hanging black flowers). Cheers. Paul Tyerman Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8 mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Crocus, Cyrtanthus, Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that doesn't move!!!!!

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