From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.09 at 07:24:55(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.
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,
> >From: Lester Kallus
> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >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
> > Les
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.