Aroid Forum: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle

IAS Aroid Quasi Forum

About Aroid-L
This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.

Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle

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

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