While agreing entirely with Chris Whitehouse's post, I think it's important to make it clear that although the Royal Horticultural Society's APONAT Panel is a major influence in horticutural taxonomy, the 'rulebooks' for both the Botanical and Cultivated Plant Codes are derived by consensus at international meetings of botanists and horticultural taxonomists - not some devious British plot to dominate the world of plants. John Grimshaw Dr John M. Grimshaw Sycamore Cottage Colesbourne Nr Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL53 9NP Tel. 01242 870567 COLESBOURNE PARK OPEN DAYS 2007 Easter Monday 9 April, Arboretum Weekend 15-16 September Gates open 1pm, last entry 4 pm website: http://www.colesbournegardens.org.uk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHERW" <christopherwhitehouse@rhs.org.uk> To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [pbs] pbs Digest, Vol 51, Issue 9 >This is why the work of the RHS Advisory Panel on Nomenclature and >Taxonomy (APONAT), whose advice informs the use of names in The RHS >PlantFinder, is so valuable. Not everyone agrees with their >judgements but it seems to me that the existence of a freely >available publication (and I mean free - >http://rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantfinder.asp/) standardising >the names of plants in horticulture the world over is invaluable. >What's more the minutes of the meetings of APONAT are now available >for all to read online here: >http://rhs.org.uk/About/Committee/…. >And they welcome comments and information about individual issues. As secretary to APONAT, I would very much like to thank Graham for pointing out to the wider horticultural world the work that this panel does for the RHS and the horticultural community in general. I would certainly like to emphasise the main reason for its existence is to provide the RHS with a standardised taxonomy for all our publications and work, and it is not there to force everyone else to agree with it. As John has pointed out in the discussion of Amaryllis and Hippeastrum, there are two aspects to every horticultural name: a nomenclatural and a taxonomic. Everyone needs to follow the nomenclatural rules appropriate for that name (whether according to the Botanical Code or the Cultivated Plant Code) if there is not going to be anarchy in plant names. These rules include priority of the name, valid publication, correct spelling and conservation of the name (e.g. Amaryllis), etc. However, nobody is obliged to follow the taxonomic aspect of a name, although as John and Graham remind us, we should probably have a strong argument for dismissing someone's well-reasoned consideration of a name change. APONAT makes decisions on both aspects and the minutes need to be read with this in mind. The RHS Plant Finder is certainly a useful resource for anyone just wanting to follow a good taxonomy without making their own decisions for every potential name change. However, the RHS Plant Finder was designed for gardeners in the UK to locate plants at nurseries and the database is actually based on the larger datasource of the RHS Horticultural Database. This can be located at the following link: http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summary.asp The advantages of using this over the Plant Finder search page is that more taxa are included (e.g. Lachenalia kliprandensis which is not found in the RHS Plant Finder but is on the RHS Horticultural Database) and it gives some indication of the status of the name. Take another example, going a bit off topic but using Graham's example of Helleborus Wester Flisk Group, this is given on the Horticultural Database as only tentatively accepted. That basically means that there is nothing obviously wrong with the name but it has not been investigated in detail enough by the RHS botanists to confirm that it has been validly described somewhere. With over 4000 plant names added to the database each year, I hope you can understand that the RHS botanists do not get time to check that there is a proper description for every name on the database. If the members are interested then I can highlight if there are any particular issues on the APONAT minutes relevant to bulbous plants once they have been published to the internet. Over the last year there have been small discussions on Nothoscordum, Typhonium & Sauromatum, and South American Oxalis. The most relevant minutes available on the internet are probably 4 August 2005, where Merwilla & Scilla and Leucojum & Acis were briefly discussed. As Graham says, in using the databases, if you feel there are aspects of it that are incorrect then please do get in touch we me and I can ask APONAT if they ought to consider changing it. Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 09/04/2007 22:59