Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography|
> Botanical nomenclature has a perfect place. As you say it is not perfect in
> of its aspect, but it does serve a valid place in science. Is the average
> 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
> 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
> plant because he likes the plant..... Does any of that require the scientific
> botanical nomenclature? Certainly knowing such might help him know if the
> was what he desired or needed, but there may well be a simpler way ....
> or a tag tells him what he needs to know or what he sees pleases his senses,
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.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
>> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.