Thank you, ummh... Jim. (I saw my fault when I reviewed my just-sent letter but then it was certainly too late...;) Really??! I did not know that there be a significant group of interest who desire to see those plants united into a genus if crossbreeding is possible - and I am indeed amazed! My state of knowledge is that the taxonomists do not care - nor for appearance neither for ummmh...crossability :) - in fact they unite /separate by other criteria, the relationships based on molecular biology. Oh - I think that you and I are mightless against that... But, personally, for ME, Amaryllis IS unique. If I were forced to place it anywhere (by similarity of appearance) then ld put it into the species Nerine- but I would know that it would be remaining an outsider there.... *rolleyes* Hans-Werner > From: jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com > To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:22:19 -0500 > Subject: Re: [pbs] Ploidy and Fertility > > Great photos, Hans-Werner. Neat colors and amazing textures on those blooms. > > > > It was Jim McKenney, not Tim, who suggested that the taxonomists need to > catch up. Hans-Werner, when you write " But, as we all know, too, is, that > this is not an argument for re-placing these within one genus" you are > speaking for yourself, and perhaps many others, but not all of us. > > All of us don't know that - or at least all of us don't agree with that. Can > you cite a better criterion for demonstrating that plants are very closely > related than the ability to produce viable, fertile offspring? > > Forget what the plants look like: that's very nineteenth century. > > Regards, > > Jim McKenney > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ _________________________________________________________________ Importieren Sie ganz einfach Ihre E-Mail Adressen in den Messenger! http://messenger.live.de/community/…