On the naming of plants?

aaron floden aaron_floden@yahoo.com
Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:25:59 PST
 Not an excellent explanation but,

A lot of molecular work involves little additional morphology work. Any conclusions based on molecular are usually for age of a genus/species, to determine the monophyly of a genus, or to determine the relationships within a family. Morphology is mentioned, but that is usually based off previously published work rather than new.  

 Also, not many new names are created when molecular work is done
unless it is in support of species being described. Most molecular work
is reinstating old names or making generic transfers; think Symphyotrichum, Eurybia, Ionactis;
Solidago, Euthamia, Sericocarpus; Leucothoe, Eubotrys; etc. A lot of names are old names that were described based on morphology by botanists who studied anatomy and morphology more intently than many taxonomists do today.

 A genus must share a common ancestor! A genus that has arose from within another would not be a new genus, or if enough time has passed the phylogeny could show two distinct clades. Interpretation could be two genera or one genus with two subgenera.

 As to people who just want their names on things think of the many people who name color forms, isolated populations as varieties, minor variants in plant size, etc. The ones to be wary of are those whose types are always "on loan," "destroyed" but with no neolectotype, or "lost." There are a few people I can think of that do this. There are others that scoop other peoples work and make name transfers when it was obvious the most recent authors pertaining to a genus/species intended to just that in their next publication. These are often published in obscure journals that not many institutions subscribe to.


--- On Fri, 12/9/11, Randall P. Linke <randysgarden@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Randall P. Linke <randysgarden@gmail.com>
Subject: [pbs] On the naming of plants?
To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Friday, December 9, 2011, 5:17 AM

I think there is a lot of good coming from the genetic work being done, but
afraid some taxonomists use it in place of good morphological studies or to
support theories of convenience to put their names behind a plant's.

One of the latter I have yet to hear coherently explained is that a new
genus can only arise from the genus level, not from a species.  All the
explanations of this I have heard rely on a clear differentiation of a
monotypic genus.  However, if anyone had been around to apply a name, which
is strictly for human convenience, to the first branches I suspect they
would be calling them different species of the same genus, which looks like
a big hole in that theory.  To believe a species can not branch and one
differentiate sufficiently to meet the criteria to be classified as a
distinct but related genus seems more convenient for publishing a new name
than anything else.

If anyone has a coherent explanation of this I would really love to hear
it, privately is fine.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Mark BROWN <brown.mark@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Thank goodness that one is sorted out!

* *
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial
appearance of being right. - Thomas Paine  ---

More information about the pbs mailing list