Ouch that hurt!!!!

Eric Green (saharris@iafrica.com)
Fri, 04 Oct 96 20:23:07 GMT

Hi!,
I suppose I have to answer to Jan's message, and I know he is
right!!!, we cannot afford to have 3003 funny named plants,
especially CPs doing the rounds.
But what happens if I procrastinate with a plant I think is
new, and in the meantime the area where they were found is covered
by concrete, which is happening to Drosera cistiflora "purple
flowering form" these past two years. Take it to a recognized
Botanical Institute who should be able to positively identify it.
Gunter and I very excitedly did take it to Kirstenbosch Botanical
Gardens, they have their hands full trying to prevent the
extinction of hundreds of rarer plants, and we never heard what the
outcome was of our cistiflora.
I found Drosera 'Hermanus high up' a few weeks/months after
Drosera 'Highland red' was collected in Hermanus and sent to Adrian
Slack, who sold the plant from his nursery, Marston Exotics. It was
only a few years later that Dr. Martin Cheek of Kew Gardens
communicated with me, indicating he was in the process of
officially naming the plant after Adrian Slack, requesting material
I had collected, and the possibility of trying to identify it's
range, by then many CP enthusiasts Worldwide had plants I had
collected, hopefully by now, they all know it's correct name is
D.slackii.
It would be terrible if Mr.Falconer when he found his beautiful
plant in Northern Australia, had not passed it on to someone who
knew CPs, and that that person had realized it was new, a weird
form of petiolaris!!!, instead he called it D.falconeri (nomina
nuda) until Kondo and Tsang officialy named it D.falconeri.
I have reason to believe someone has called D.sp magaliesburg,
D.nidiformis, am I right???

> This is definitely not the right way. There is no (i.e. exactly
> 0, ZERO) alternative to valid publication, Latin description, and
> type specimen deposition (according to ICBN) in the proper naming
> of plants. Any alternative or "preliminary" naming (especially if
> connected with plant distribution in horticultural collections)
> will inevitably lead (and add) to confusion and chaos (want me to
> send you a list of approx. 3000 examples?).
There is a right and a wrong way of naming plants, but can't
we, the non-biologist, when finding something we believe is new,
have some way to name and distribute the plants we enjoy so, until
some fundi comes along and names it properly.

> >Mark sent me a plant to identify, and definitely traded
> >something weird/rare in return. I thought it looked a lot like
> my >collinsae, but sufficiently different
>
> How did it differ?
My collinsae has +-8 leaves, +-6cm long, the 'other' plant had
a maximum of 4 leaves which were 8-10 cm long and it's flower stalk
was taller. It does not sound like much now, but they looked like
two different plants to me. I realize chromosome counting is
required, flower parts closely examined etc. but where!!!

> >, so informed him that I thought it was new. HELP!!!!. I was
> dying to distribute it to my friends at the time, I am just a
> printer fascinated by CP. and D.sp Magaliesberg sounded
> good!!!!!.
>
> It sounds terrible.
What do you suggest would have been better.

> >What about the others, nothing like what Allen Lowrie is finding
>
> Very good! ;-)
Allen and others have sent me many plants/seed with names like
D.sp Auyan Tepui, spec nova 8 Borneo, sp El Caballo Blanco, sp red
Dwarf, sp Golden leaf, there are many more.

> aliciae, esterhuizenae, slackii yes, "D.sp floating" (shudder!)
> no.
Is it any worse than 'golden leaf' for D.bulbosa

> >D.cistiflora var eitz,
>
> Ouch!
?

> >Gunter Eitz and I found it in the Clanwilliam district, it's
> growth habit is very different to the common form of cistiflora,
> and at the time looked around for a name to call it, something to
> identify it from the others!!!!, Gunter was the only one standing
> within miles.
>
> Then you should have described it (as "D.cistiflora var. eitzii"
> or similar) before you spread it under a (wrong and invalid)
> fancy name.
> But be careful in this complex. Very many forms have been given
> names already, and most of them were lumped under _D.cistiflora_
> s.lat. again (only _D.alba_, _D.pauciflora_, and _D.acaulis_
> survive as distinct, and any new addition should at least be as
> different from _D.cistiflora_ as _D.alba_).

D.cistiflora var. zeherii will always be D.cistiflora var.
zeherii in my book, the fundis may say the flowers are the same as
the normal cistiflora, but the plants look like a comparison of
capensis and aliciae to me, both have pink flowers.

ALL THE BEST Eric