New mystery bulb

John Bryan
Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:14:02 PDT
Dear Fred:

For what it is worth, my opinion is that molecular differences should
NOT trump floral form. Looking down the road, I can see problems if
molecular differences rule. Such information is valuable, no doubt about
it, but I feel such should be in a separate classification, or table or
whatever, not mixed in with, and take the place of floral form. If such
continues I can see difficulty in the identification of plants in the
field. A new, separate classification is required, such to be used by
those who can use and have need of it, but not for, or as the rule, for
practical identification. Perhaps someone could make a name for
him/herself by tackling this, you perhaps? Cheers, John e. Bryan

boutin wrote:
> For further comments on Manning and Goldblatt's lumping together of genera
> and species based on molecular evidence I suggest referring back to Harold
> Koopowitz's comments in January of this year: [pbs] Scilla and taxonomic
> changes.
> Personally I feel that it is good to know that Drimiopsis is very close to
> Ledebouria based on molecular evidence, but should Drimiopsis be merged into
> Ledebouria, ignoring what seem to be visually very different flower forms.
> Should molecular evidence trump floral form?
> Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list