And this explains why I have been unable to get a take trying to cross Leucojum with Acis. But has anyone tried Leucojum with Galanthus? thanks for the info. Harold At 12:11 PM 3/28/2004 +0100, you wrote: >Mary Sue wrote: > > > > Are you saying that the only two species that will be considering Leucojum > > are Leucojum aestivum and L. vernum? Did I read that right? > >Yes, this is correct. L. vernum is the type species of the Linnean genus >Leucojum. > > > >All the rest will now be known as Acis? > >Yes. The type of the genus is Acis autumnalis, and there are about 10 >species in all. > > >How in the world do you pronounce Acis? > >AYcis or A cis ( a as in apple). A cis is probably more correct in >classical terms, but probably most people will use Aycis, as they do when >referring to Handel's opera, 'Acis and Galatea'. Acis was a shepherd in >Greek mythology. > > > >Does the world follow what Kew proposes? > >If the world is wise it follows an authoritarive piece of taxonomic work; >if not, it can continue to be reactionary. This is fine so long as the >user can adduce arguments at least as convincing as those used by the >professionals. > > > >This isn't a change based on DNA testing, > > but a change on the basis of physical characteristics? Is it possible that > > when DNA is done, that they will all be back together? > >The work I am quoting from is an excellent, model study of a group of >closely related plants Galanthus and Leucojum, carried out at RBG Kew by >Dolores Lledo, Aaron Davis, Manuel Crespo, Mark Chase and Michael Fay, >entitled: > > >'Phylogenetic analysis of Leucojum and Galanthus (Amaryllidaceae) based on >plastid matK and nuclear ribosomal spacer (ITS) DNA sequences and morphology.' > > > >It is currently in press, but I was given permission to use it for my >lecture at the recent RHS Snowdrop day. > > > >They used three different DNA sequences, plus an analysis of 46 physical >characters to arrive at a cladogram (in effect a family tree showing >evolutionary relationships) that shows that Galanthus is most closely >related to Leucojum, and that Acis is a clearly defined group of its own. >In consequence their division follows these groups, and makes total sense >when one looks at the living plants. > > > > > > I think I said it before but if the botanical names keep changing as > > rapidly as they seem to lately soon we will no longer be able to say to > all > > those people who prefer using common names that using botanical names > > allows us all to know that we are talking about the same plant. How do we > > keep up? > >This can be difficult, but in horticultural circles the rate of change is >generally so slow that it scarcely matters; the new names become instated >by slow osmosis, giving plenty of time for everyone to get to know what is >being discussed. Most good gardeners only refer to things by their >specific name anyway! > > > > > I haven't quite recovered from the thought that the first year my Scilla > > natalensis is finally going to bloom it has been converted to Merwilla > > natalensis. > >Think about it - how like a Eurasian Scilla is 'Scilla' natalensis? Not >very! It is a typical case of a non-European plant being shoe-horned into >a European genus by European botanists; now we have more refined taxonomic >techniques it is possible to untangle the former mess and place such >plants in their correct taxonomic place. A classic example of this are the >Australian everlasting flowers, stuffed into Helichrysum by European >botanists, now slowly and painfully being disentangled. > > >John Grimshaw > >_______________________________________________ >pbs mailing list >pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php Prof. Harold Koopowitz Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California, Irvine, CA 92697