Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 00:03:27 -0500 From: "Dave Evans" <dpevans@rci.rutgers.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg609$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. purpurea nomenclature
Dear Phil,
I agree with you about this. The one and only exception to this would
be _S. purpurea purpurea heterophylla_. It's a lousy name, but the plants
do form colonies with large numbers of individuals, hence why I feel the do
deserve a taxonomic name, hence the name "heterophylla" has to be retained.
However, there have been no published reports of any other anthocyanin-free
pitchers plants forming colonies with anymore a couple plants. So none of
them should be accepted, in my opinion.
Also, it would be nice if people did stop publishing such names of no
merit. Before publishing new name, how about doing some research? Also,
what is wrong with simply calling the plant, say, "_S. rosei_ all-green"?
This not directed at Phil, of course, but to people who seem to publish
papers, just to have their name on something published--or so it would seem.
Phil, I think "all-green" is a bit more accurate as there are many
plants that can still produce anthocyanins, but are nearly always green
anyway.... So I guess it would be better to call these plants "green" and
those which can't produce any colors but green (and yellow and white which
are obscured by the green anyway) in order to keep these separate from those
that are just mostly green.
>Do we really need a separate form designation, with different names (e.g.
>heterophylla vs. luteolata) for every single anthocyanin-free mutation
found!
Please, God, I hope not. I think only organisms/plants that have or had
a presence (meaning more than a couple of freaks, indicating an evolutionary
advantage) in the wild should get taxonomic names. That is the intent
anyway, but people are free to write what they want and publishers are free
to publish what they want... But be warned, if we use up all the accurate
and valid names on bogus plants, we will start running out of good names for
those taxa which should be accepted. Once a name is validily published
(but not accepted by anyone but the author) it can't be used again, even if
a plant is later found for which that name would be very accurate.
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST