Sun, 03 Feb 2013 07:28:21 PST
Nhu is absolutely spot on in the way he has set out the "stall" on this topic. 

In support, one of the major reasons that the new Lily Monograph has been held up has been due to the imperative for an almost complete re-appraisal of much of the published taxonomy in the Genus Lilium largely on account of the steady increase of published research into phylogenetic relationships amongst Lilium, right across the board, resulting in effectively digging out taxa upto species level and burying others in reverse with concomitant implications also at the level of section. A classic 'dead-end' has been the trap botanists have fallen into but perhaps understandably so in the light of science a mere decade or so previously. Perhaps a useful analogy might not be, if it walks and quacks like a duck-then it must be a duck. Oh contraire. Just because a lily has a martagon type inflorescence does not mean it is in any way closely related to all or even most of the others as has now become startlingly obvious. I have a paper is in preparation for publication in a botanica
 l journal attempting to sort this out, initially with those taxa in the European - Anatolian and Caucasus regions, with follow ups on other regions. 

Some of the relevant taxa might be happy to find themselves no longer ugly ducklings if I may stretch a metaphor. The days of the Mexican stand off between so called 'lumpers and splitters' is effectively soon to be at an end with these new tools and allowing an inarguable case, more often than not, to be made one way or another

More information about the pbs mailing list