Locality data

Dietrich Müller-Doblies d.mueller-doblies@gmx.de
Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:18:06 PDT
Hello Leo,
you are absolutely right: "we name species based on differences in plant 
structures, not geography". To name species based on differences in 
geography is sometimes a first approach, a rough guess, but not 
taxonomy. A mere geographic expert is no botanic expert. Nevertheless 
geography is often a very helpful tool for identifications in addition 
to plant structures, especially as a critical check, whether the 
locality fits into the pattern of the known distribution of the 
identified name.
I remember  your helpful comments on localities earlier this year, on 
Albuca sp. Augrabies Hills and especially on Albuca navicula when you 
traced the very rare plant back to dear old John Lavranos' collection, 
from whom we have by the way several Albucas in cultivation.

Hi All of the chorus on *locality data*,
Thus, the locality should never replace the morphological = structural 
identification, but it should be always retained when available and 
passed down with the plant. I am impressed how clear many of you see 
this importance.
I have a dream: For all Wiki pictures the locality should be given or at 
least the quarter degree square (QDS) for plants from Southern Africa. 
For many Wiki pictures the locality and the photographer is given in a 
satisfactory way, but in the great majority of e.g. Albuca  and Massonia 
pictures the locality is not given, even if the photographer knows well 
the in situ place. Of course the locality of rare and endangered plants 
should never be given in a precise way, but the QDS given, will never be 
a danger for the population. A QDS has a size of more 500 square 
kilometres = more than half the size of the Cape Peninsula or more than 
half the size of Germany's capital Berlin. Cultivated plant from the 
Garden X, as sometimes given for Wiki pictures is far better than 
nothing or cultivated plant of unknown origin is better than a note 
about the distribution area of the species.

Hi Chad Miller,
when you introduced yourself in January this year you wrote: "I am 
looking forward to continuing research on geophytes (so if anyone has 
something that they think would be interesting, I am always entertaining 
new research ideas". Do you have in the mean time a full research 
program? If not yet, you might think about building up a database about 
the localities of rare and interesting bulbs of wild origin. I could 
contribute some clonotypes = vegetative offsprings of the type 
collection, e.g. the clonotype of Cyrtanthus montanus R.A.Dyer, which we 
got from the author from the window board of his office in the year 
after its description.

Am 30.10.2012 22:42, schrieb Leo A. Martin:
> My point was that the expert, even after examining the plant, was unable
> to identify a species without knowing where he was. If that is the case,
> how valid can the separation of this genus into species be? I have been
> led to believe we name species based on differences in plant structures,
> not geography.
> Leo Martin
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/

More information about the pbs mailing list