Oh, I see another genus akin to Euphorbia in the making! I believe some investigation of these relationships have been done at the DNA level, though I regard such data as important as other physical descriptors. T> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:40:02 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] Sinking Brunsvigia> > Leo, Jim-- I've also felt it would be sensible to at least consider this> merger. They are separated by seemingly non-profound details of the seeds> and the leaves with midrib (Amaryllis) or without (Brunsvigia), whereas the> traits in common are overwhelming. Is morphological homogeneity important in> defining genera? How important?> The same applies to the seemingly artificial distinction of Hessea from> Strumaria, based on somewhat variable character states. Carpolyza has> already been lumped under the latter. I suppose the taxonomists are happy to> rely more on molecular data when the going gets tough regarding when to> split and when to lump.> Dylan> > On Dec 12, 2007 1:23 PM, Leo A. Martin <leo@possi.org> wrote:> > > > One other way to get more species: given the easy "hybridization" of> > > Amaryllis and Brunsvigia, I've long been waiting for someone to combine> > > those genera: the plants have already done it, now it's time for the> > > taxonomists to catch up.> > >> > > Jim McKenney> >> > That would be great! Amaryllis (1753) is so much easier to grow than> > Brunsvigia (1755)!> >> > Leo Martin> > Phoenix Arizona USA> >> > _______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >> _______________________________________________> pbs mailing list> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/