Family classification

gentiaan bulborum
Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:00:35 PDT
It takes at least 100 year to chance a name
Yes I know Cyclamen neapolitanum is Cyclamen hederifolium ssp. hederifolium
of course the botanist is right but sometimes they change in 15 year
time 3-4 times a name
but if you are a gardener or hobbyist grower you maybe know it is
Cyclamen hederifolium
but all those others don't know they use old Latin or local names (see
all old simple books)
If I want to sell I am using the selling name and do not use the
complicated names
a client who does not understand the name is not a buyer
and the botanist is not paying my cost and my food
let them think first 10 times before they change a name
Smilacina with a lot of species in Maianthemum with just a few species
Just because his name is mentioned many times
I know the rules but sometimes ????


2010/4/28 Jane McGary <>:
> Mary Sue wrote,
> At 08:59 PM 4/27/2010, you wrote:
>>To quote Wikipedia, "A modern system of plant taxonomy, the APG II
>>system of plant classification was published in April of 2003 by the
>>Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, APG. It was a revision of the first APG
>>system, published in 1998, and was superseded in 2009 by a further
>>revision, the APG III system."
>>In APG II Alliaceae optionally included Agapanthaceae and
>>Amaryllidaceae.  So you could choose to include these or to keep them
>>separate. Most of us didn't choose to include them.
>  What does this user
>>community prefer to do? Are we doing away with Alliaceae,
>>Agapanthaceae, Agavaceae, Anthericaceae, Asphodelaceae,
>>Convallariaceae, Eriospermaceae, Hemerocallidaceae, Hyacinthaceae,
>>Themidaceae, and Trilliaceae to name a few of the families that would
>>be history ?
> I would much rather see the wiki stick with the "split" version of
> the classification. It makes sense to the gardener and amateur
> botanist because it relies to a great extent on visually observable
> characteristics, whereas the "lumped" version presumably relies more
> on molecular and evolutionary studies to which many users of the wiki
> do not have access. I was relieved when the Liliaceae got split up,
> even though my usual preference is for lumping when possible --
> possibly because I think it should be done more with languages (if
> political considerations could be set aside). I am annoyed by
> gardeners who have a knee-jerk response of complaining about every
> name change made by botanists -- I just got a catalog that's still
> using names like "Cyclamen neapolitanum," which must have been
> renamed at least 40 years ago -- but the relentless submerging of
> familiar genera can stimulate even me to react that way (see
> Iridaceae for examples). It's very handy to have, for example, a
> family Themidaceae, because you can then speak of "themids" just as
> you do "irids," instead of listing all the similar genera you want to discuss.
> Jane McGary
> Northwestern Oregon, USA
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list

R de Boer
La Maugardiere 1

Tel./Fax 0033-232-576-204

More information about the pbs mailing list