Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:04:49 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg912$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Dear Dave,
> > =>
> > simply better for most purposes except for having your buddy s name
> > or your own name cited once more!) bastard formulae in my list.
>
> I don't understand part in the ( ) after the =>. Could you please
> clarify?
Certainly. "Nagamoto" does e.g. not appear in the formula _Drosera
anglica * D. spatulata_, thus the formula is inacceptable for a few
guys who rather call the same thing Drosera * nagamotoi.
> > According to the ICBN hybrid epithets and bastard formulae are
> > *equivalent* (i.e. both equally valid at the same time for the same
> > taxon). I therefore prefer the formula wherever applicable.
>
> Ok, I understand your preference and agree that all the information
> should be cited (the list would only be half complete if this were
> left out). So how does one create a valid hybrid epithet? Use
> the method for naming a taxonomically relevant type of plant, even
> though it's not relevant?
Yes. But this creates a name that is not likely to be accepted by
many botanists.
> Anyway, I was thinking that this hybrid would (and should) never
> be considered = to a plant, hybrid or not, removed from nature.
> Just that it would be named and that all other crosses of the
> sort would also fall under the name.
>
> > If it is artificial, it can only be named properly by the bastard
> > formula. The ICBN would allow for scientific naming formally
> > (& validly), but such a thing just does not make any sense,
> > taxonomically.
>
> Ok, this is the part that I'm having trouble with. The first
> sentence only the bastard formula can be used, but the second
> says it can be named... (oh, my head!) Anyway, no taxonomy
> here, but why not name it after a characteristic? The name
> can't have taxonomic value if the plant it self doesn't...
Oh, my head! Why do you not simly use the bastard formula and basta?
Naming a plant scientifically must be the result of taxonomic
reasoning. Taxonomy drives nomenclature. This is one of the
fundamental regulations of the ICBN. So there is no way to do one
without the other.
> P.S. why not give the naturally occuring hybrids names a + infront
> of them on your list then? They are much more relevant than
> anything coming out of a greehouse...
Just because this is superfluous. The names of all parent species are
valid. So is the bastard formula. I do not need extra epithets at
all for the hybrids.
> This might be a good idea: Keep the naturally occurring
> hybrids under one name and the artifical hybrids of even the same
> special parents under seperate, but valid (with no taxonomical
> anything), names? It seems like this would be fairly straight
> forward, without much chance of mishap. And leave the cultivars
> and their way beyond special traits to themselves.
Again: all the job is perfectly done with bastard formulae. I do not
need to mess around with hybrid epithets or even several categories
thereof.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:00 PST