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 ???? Roland 2010/4/28 Jane McGary <janemcgary@earthlink.net>: > 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system, published in 1998, and was superseded in 2009 by a further 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 > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > -- R de Boer La Maugardiere 1 F 27260 EPAIGNES FRANCE Tel./Fax 0033-232-576-204 Email: bulborum@gmail.com