Why scentists/plant collectors ---- ad nauseatum :-)

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.07.11 at 04:19:36(7013) Hello all! I have resisted the HORRIBLE urge to comment on this topic which has gone on for way too long about a very simple thing, the rules that scientists MUST follow when naming life forms---come on guys, love it or leave it! If you folks don`t like the scientific name of a plant, or a correction that taxonomists MUST make when an error is encountered after new research has brought a good and pertinant point to light which may necessitate a change (as in the recent placement of Sauromatum into Typhonium, a really great article IF you have followed and can understand the VERY clear reasons given for the change) then you can continue calling it Sauromatum (or even 'John') if you so choose, but don`t be offended when people try to correct you or even laugh at you! Rules are there for a purpose, and they work, so if you can`t abide by them, then dont, but please do not make light of or make derisive remarks or belittle the work of dedicated and qualified scientists who labor to make the world a little more organuised in SOME of our eyes---grow them, love them, give them whatever names you please (even name one 'George'), and leave well alone! Sorry to disagree, Steve, but I personally find the the naming system does a great job, not perfect by a LONG stretch, but this generally is due to someone`s error, NOT the system itself---it has worked for a while, and continues to work today, and is getting better as more dedicated folk like Tom, Pete, Simon, Josef, Wilbert, Eduardo and many others strive to and make our knowledge of plant relationships a tad better every year! Changes in ANY system is inevitable as knowledge is gained on any given subject on a daily basis, nothing is 'fixed' forever. Sorry to once more bore some. Julius +More >>Just a note of explanation to all your Aroiders who noticed that the last two messages posted were actually sent several days ago. They slipped by in the hundreds (and hundreds and hundreds) of other messages, and thanks to Wilbert for calling it to my attention so I could send them on. While my subject line is a facetious reference to the primary subject of discussion, that happens to be a topic of much interest to me. As I told Wilbert privately, I agree and disagree with both sides. But I put the blame not with what either side wants from the naming system, but squarely on the fact that the naming system is sooooo very poor! It can't do any of its jobs well, yet we try to make it do them all. (I resist the urge to be much more specific here.) I followed the taxonomy list for years, often reading in disbelief ("surely he can't mean what that sounds like", followed by "but he does!"), and told Cathy many times that as I learned more about it, my increasing disrespect for the system itself was matched only by my increasing respect for the poor taxonomists and systematists who suffer under it. (Of course, we growers, horticulturists, ecologists, customs agents, etc. all suffer under it too. It seems to be a non-discriminitory abuser of everyone who uses it.) It's hard to believe this is the best thing we've got, yet it seems to be. Steve -- Steve Marak -- samarak@arachne.uark.edu

From: "Horak, David" davidhorak at bbg.org> on 2001.07.13 at 19:49:52(7033) I agree Julius. To reiterate what has been pointed out previously, if you think binomial nomenclature can be confusing and frustrating with "name changes" and so forth, relying on common names would be a nightmare. Aroids are not my principle botanical interest, orchids are. In the Orchidaceae there are so many different species (and hybrids) known as the "Butterfly Orchid" or the "Bumblebee Orchid" from around the world knowing which genus, much less species, someone is referring to can be very difficult. In many cases species are so superficially similar to each other that differentiation is difficult for the expert much less the layperson. A common name serves only to clump rather than clarify. Additionally, the same common names frequently have been applied to species from very different plants in different families from all over the world. The obverse is also true some plants with wide distributions have several common names depending on locality. Certainly, within the Orchidaceae with 20 some thousand plus species and well over 100,000 registered hybrids, a common name rarely helps to clarify which plant is being described or discussed. In my experience the idea that the common person just wants a pretty plant with a simple name is not generally accurate. I find that when people are just beginning to develop an interest in plants for the garden or windowsill a common name is easier and less formidable but as they get into it or acquire more plants, they want to know the latin names. Of course there are plenty of problems with the latin binomial system and its ability to reflect species variation and complexes, etc. but be thankful there is a system, rules and a process. For a somewhat more entertaining view of taxonomy and names check out the following link. http://www.best.com/~atta/taxonomy.html regards, Dave Horak +More Brooklyn Botanic Garden -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:19 AM To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Subject: Fw: Why scentists/plant collectors ---- ad nauseatum :-) Hello all! I have resisted the HORRIBLE urge to comment on this topic which has gone on for way too long about a very simple thing, the rules that scientists MUST follow when naming life forms---come on guys, love it or leave it! If you folks don`t like the scientific name of a plant, or a correction that taxonomists MUST make when an error is encountered after new research has brought a good and pertinant point to light which may necessitate a change (as in the recent placement of Sauromatum into Typhonium, a really great article IF you have followed and can understand the VERY clear reasons given for the change) then you can continue calling it Sauromatum (or even 'John') if you so choose, but don`t be offended when people try to correct you or even laugh at you! Rules are there for a purpose, and they work, so if you can`t abide by them, then dont, but please do not make light of or make derisive remarks or belittle the work of dedicated and qualified scientists who labor to make the world a little more organuised in SOME of our eyes---grow them, love them, give them whatever names you please (even name one 'George'), and leave well alone! Sorry to disagree, Steve, but I personally find the the naming system does a great job, not perfect by a LONG stretch, but this generally is due to someone`s error, NOT the system itself---it has worked for a while, and continues to work today, and is getting better as more dedicated folk like Tom, Pete, Simon, Josef, Wilbert, Eduardo and many others strive to and make our knowledge of plant relationships a tad better every year! Changes in ANY system is inevitable as knowledge is gained on any given subject on a daily basis, nothing is 'fixed' forever. Sorry to once more bore some. Julius

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