> 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