Typhoniums linked

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2003.02.04 at 16:34:17(9921) Folks, The species of Typhonium on the IAS website are now linked to their picture pages. Have fun. +More Cheerio, Wilbert

From: "MJ Hatfield" mjhatfield at oneota.org> on 2003.02.05 at 00:41:10(9923) The Typhonium photos are wonderful. Great to have them linked. But what do you mean..."Sauromatum may be resurrected?" MJ

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2003.02.05 at 15:28:11(9927) Sauromatum, dear, was finished off by me and Peter Boyce in Aroideana. Don't you read your literature??????? In my introduction on the Typhonium page, I state that Typhonium may have to be cut up in smaller groups and that means that T. venosum may end up being a group of its own again, in which case the name Sauromatum has to be re-instated. Lordie +More > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu > [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens MJ Hatfield > Verzonden: woensdag 5 februari 2003 1:41 > Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu > Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] Typhoniums linked > > > The Typhonium photos are wonderful. Great to have them linked. > But what do you mean..."Sauromatum may be resurrected?" > MJ > > >

From: Rand Nicholson writserv at nbnet.nb.ca> on 2003.02.06 at 15:42:35(9935) Dear Lord P.: Speaking for those of us who still have their old Sauromatum labels laying about on their benches ... Ha! I'm glad people don't have to name their kids the way taxonomists name plants. ;-) Still: "A rose by any other name would ..." er never mind. Rand +More Sauromatum, dear, was finished off by me and Peter Boyce in Aroideana. Don't you read your literature??????? In my introduction on the Typhonium page, I state that Typhonium may have to be cut up in smaller groups and that means that T. venosum may end up being a group of its own again, in which case the name Sauromatum has to be re-instated. Lordie -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens MJ Hatfield Verzonden: woensdag 5 februari 2003 1:41 Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] Typhoniums linked The Typhonium photos are wonderful. Great to have them linked. But what do you mean..."Sauromatum may be resurrected?" MJ

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2003.02.06 at 17:35:24(9937) Ranting Rand, You are absolutely right. Us taxonomists make life complicated at times. On the other hand, plant people are inherently conservative in this, not appreciating the scientific dynamics of taxonomy, which after all IS science. What would happen if scientific developement stopped? (I don't expect a smart-ass answer to this!!!!!!! o.k.!!!!!) Congrats with your Sauromatum labels! Don't throw 'em away just yet!!!!!!!! Cheerio, Lord P. +More > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu > [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens Rand Nicholson > Verzonden: donderdag 6 februari 2003 16:43 > Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu > Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] Typhoniums linked > > > Dear Lord P.: > > Speaking for those of us who still have their old Sauromatum labels > laying about on their benches ... > > Ha! > > I'm glad people don't have to name their kids the way taxonomists > name plants. ;-) > > Still: "A rose by any other name would ..." er never mind. > > Rand > > > > >Sauromatum, dear, was finished off by me and Peter Boyce in > Aroideana. Don't > >you read your literature??????? In my introduction on the > Typhonium page, I > >state that Typhonium may have to be cut up in smaller groups > and that means > >that T. venosum may end up being a group of its own again, > in which case the > >name Sauromatum has to be re-instated. > > > >Lordie > > > > > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >> Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu > >> [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens MJ Hatfield > >> Verzonden: woensdag 5 februari 2003 1:41 > >> Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu > >> Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] Typhoniums linked > >> > >> > >> The Typhonium photos are wonderful. Great to have them linked. > >> But what do you mean..."Sauromatum may be resurrected?" > >> MJ > >> > >> > >> >

From: Rand Nicholson writserv at nbnet.nb.ca> on 2003.02.07 at 16:22:03(9941) Your Lordliness: I subscribe to a few other lists, notably an orchid and carnivorous plants list, where the naming of names is sometimes discussed by knowledgeable people with hammers and battleaxes a-flailing, though usually more civilized. Although sometimes fun from an onlooker's point of view (I keep very still and try not to make eye contact), one can appreciate the underlying seriousness of what is being attempted. Many times it has been brought home, the importance of getting it right amongst a sometimes bewildering (to me) confusion of criteria, historical inaccuracies, various schools of thought (ie: Lumpers and Splitters) and , of course, the personal take of some involved regarding the rules and guidelines of taxonomy itself. So, I do not mock the science or the attempt to classify things as they should be in order to allow me to say for certainty that my A. fargesii _is_ indeed A. fargesii and not A. franchetianum (which, by the way, it turned out to be - I think). Typhonium venosum (see, I said it! Hardly hurt at all.) came to me as a "Voodoo Lily" with a burbling exhortation of how it would "flower hugely and gorgeously on your windowsill from the naked bulb without being potted into soil!" Who amongst us could resist that? And it did what they said. After I regained consciousness I found out everything I could, which was _very_ difficult at that time, (my email was still a decade away in the early eighties) about the amazing beast, my first bulbous Aroid, and decided that Sauromatum guttatum was a keeper (much to the disgust of my friends and family who had witnessed the event). You see, I had a lot invested in the name as well as the plant which still lives on today, happily flaunting its inflorescence each spring like clockwork _out_ of doors in fresh moving air in a nice roomy pot with some of its offspring. Now the place is crawling with various Aroids and I could not be happier. I bend a knee before your phalloid wisdom m'Lord and If you find that you must rename any of them I will dutifully make the appropriate labels and use them freely, as I have a large supply of markers and labels are cheap. And I actually do want to know what I have, am growing, and be able to find good information on them. Names are, indeed, important. (I should also get points for restraint in complying with your expectations regarding any answer to your question. Significant restraint, when one considers possible responses, which, of course, I haven't.) You will forgive me though, I trust, if I dance The Aroid Dance of Joy _if_ an old friend returns? And have a bit of fun with this along the way? Best Regards, Rantless Rand +More z5b (I wish) Maritime Canada Ranting Rand, You are absolutely right. Us taxonomists make life complicated at times. On the other hand, plant people are inherently conservative in this, not appreciating the scientific dynamics of taxonomy, which after all IS science. What would happen if scientific developement stopped? (I don't expect a smart-ass answer to this!!!!!!! o.k.!!!!!) Congrats with your Sauromatum labels! Don't throw 'em away just yet!!!!!!!! Cheerio, Lord P.

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2003.02.08 at 08:48:15(9945) Oh Good Ran(d/t) of Canada, Your well-prosed reply concerning the names of the beasts has struck me deep. I resign as taxonomist. I surrender myself to the Law of the Labels, The Scepsis of the Sellers and the Protests of the Public. I am doomed, trodden, trampled, trashed and whatnot. Until I will resurface from the soil where I will look for Times Eternal to Elysean Fields of tubers of Sauromatum, once thought to be Typhonium, I greet you. O.k., so much for my alter ego. Now it's my turn. Of course you are right (you are?). Name changes also can cause stirs, especially in plant groups that are economically important. Of course, names for a minor, insignificant group of people who like such afwul creatures as aroids and are joined in an insignificant clubette called the IAS, are not worth considering by taxonomists at large..... Wait, this is not the beginning of a proper answer.......this is too soft. No, serious, name changes are good and bad. Good is that they do indeed (SHOULD indeed) reflect progression in taxonomic thought. These days taxonomists are by and large of the opinion that names should reflect evolutionary relationships as that is the great adagium most biologists work with, despite the fact that there are areas in the world (even in the western one) prohibiting (the children of) their inhabitants to think that evolution is happening. +More As it turns out, Peter and I thought it more than logical on morphological grounds that the species of Sauromatum are in fact nested WITHIN Typhonium. Hell, Sauromatum brevipes WAS originally introduced as Typhonium brevipes, people!!!! In such a hypothesized situation, keeping the three species out of this realm by naming them Sauromatum, is misleading. We ran a few analyses of the morphological data in relation to those of species of nearby genera and behold, the Sauromatum species always turned out to become nested IN Typhonium. In such a case, naming them Typhonium, clearly denotes that evolutionary relation. So in our eyes the name ought to be Typhonium, given that we are correct in our hypothesis of relationships between the species examined. Such hypotheses, based on morphology alone, are nowadays challenged by data from DNA. In the case of Typhonium, Susanne Renner's analyses seem to indicate that Typhonium may NOT be an evolutionary group to begin with and so Peter and mine analysis of Sauromatum + Typhonium may have been started out on the wrong foot. The wrong Typhonium, to be precise. So, in the end the new analyses may show that Typhonium + Sauromatum = Typhonium sensu Hetterscheid & Boyce is the wrong equation and other genera should be included or parts of genera should be excluded. I hope I have confused you now to the point that you won't hesitate to put TWO labels in your venosum-colony. Cheerio, Wilbert Hetterscheid (member of Homo sapiens for as long as it is allowed by taxonomists) > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu > [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens Rand Nicholson > Verzonden: vrijdag 7 februari 2003 17:22 > Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu > Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] Typhoniums linked > > > Your Lordliness: > > I subscribe to a few other lists, notably an orchid and > carnivorous > plants list, where the naming of names is sometimes discussed by > knowledgeable people with hammers and battleaxes a-flailing, though > usually more civilized. Although sometimes fun from an onlooker's > point of view (I keep very still and try not to make eye contact), > one can appreciate the underlying seriousness of what is being > attempted. Many times it has been brought home, the importance of > getting it right amongst a sometimes bewildering (to me) confusion of > criteria, historical inaccuracies, various schools of thought (ie: > Lumpers and Splitters) and , of course, the personal take of some > involved regarding the rules and guidelines of taxonomy itself. So, I > do not mock the science or the attempt to classify things as they > should be in order to allow me to say for certainty that my A. > fargesii _is_ indeed A. fargesii and not A. franchetianum (which, by > the way, it turned out to be - I think). > > Typhonium venosum (see, I said it! Hardly hurt at all.) came to me as > a "Voodoo Lily" with a burbling exhortation of how it would "flower > hugely and gorgeously on your windowsill from the naked bulb without > being potted into soil!" Who amongst us could resist that? And it > did what they said. > > After I regained consciousness I found out everything I could, which > was _very_ difficult at that time, (my email was still a decade away > in the early eighties) about the amazing beast, my first bulbous > Aroid, and decided that Sauromatum guttatum was a keeper (much to the > disgust of my friends and family who had witnessed the event). > > You see, I had a lot invested in the name as well as the plant which > still lives on today, happily flaunting its inflorescence each spring > like clockwork _out_ of doors in fresh moving air in a nice roomy pot > with some of its offspring. Now the place is crawling with various > Aroids and I could not be happier. I bend a knee before your phalloid > wisdom m'Lord and If you find that you must rename any of them I will > dutifully make the appropriate labels and use them freely, as I have > a large supply of markers and labels are cheap. And I actually do > want to know what I have, am growing, and be able to find good > information on them. Names are, indeed, important. > > (I should also get points for restraint in complying with your > expectations regarding any answer to your question. Significant > restraint, when one considers possible responses, which, of course, I > haven't.) > > You will forgive me though, I trust, if I dance The Aroid Dance of > Joy _if_ an old friend returns? And have a bit of fun with this along > the way? > > > Best Regards, > > > Rantless Rand > z5b (I wish) Maritime Canada > > > > > > >Ranting Rand, > > > >You are absolutely right. Us taxonomists make life > complicated at times. On > >the other hand, plant people are inherently conservative in this, not > >appreciating the scientific dynamics of taxonomy, which after all IS > >science. What would happen if scientific developement > stopped? (I don't > >expect a smart-ass answer to this!!!!!!! o.k.!!!!!) > > > >Congrats with your Sauromatum labels! Don't throw 'em away > just yet!!!!!!!! > > > >Cheerio, > > > >Lord P. >

From: "Balistrieri, Carlo" cbalistrieri at nybg.org> on 2003.02.10 at 13:35:12(9960) Actually Wilbert, I've split Homo sapiens. Plant people are obviously another species entirely: I go with Homo dementus. For one who's interested in plant nomenclature and taxonomy, albeit not formally trained in either, this discussion is another fascinating look at how these things get done (undone, and done again). Being trained as a lawyer, the only righteous indignation I can arouse is when someone doesn't follow the rules--or stretches them to the point that logic fails. Whenever I get in a muddle about taxonomic/nomenclatural matters I fall back on my short list: 1. get the best information you can 2. try to understand the reason for the proposed change. 3. just for yucks, form your own opinion and see which side of the fence you fall down on. 4. remember that all this stuff is invented by us. NOTHING had a name until man came along. 5. the plants don't care. 6. the plants don't care. 7. the plants don't care. Carlo +More Carlo A. Balistrieri Curator of the Rock Garden The New York Botanical Garden 200th Street & Kazimiroff Blvd. Bronx, New York 10458-5126 United States of America Phone: 718-817-8027 FAX: 718-817-8041 E-Mail: cbalistrieri@nybg.org

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