Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:52:02 -0400 From: Michael <chambe58@pilot.msu.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2136$foo@default> Subject: Re: Yet more on Nelson
At 05:20 AM 6/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
> Dear Jan, Michael et al,
>
> thanks for the lively discussion!
>
> >What is a subsp., var. or f. is not defined anywhere in the
> >ICBN (OK, they are infraspecific ranks, but not even the
> >meaning or significance of this fact is explained to any
> >sensible degree).BTW: Yes, Michael, Stuessy writes a lot.
> >But unfortunately (or rather, fortunately?) Stuessy is not
> >a collection of rules that *must* be followed but only one
> >of the numerous possible *opinions*.
>
> And given so many options on interpretation inconsistency is
> inevitable, if its problematic for plant taxonomists the
> situations even hazier for the rest of us.
I encourage you to read the publications I and Jan have mentioned, if you
wish to pursue this subject. I think you will not find inconsistency in
the modern recommendations for delineation of taxa. The papers Jan and I
have listed, especially that of Hamilton & Reichard are calling for
consistency in infraspecific classification--"it behooves taxonomists to
remedy the observed inconsistency of practice by standardizing
infraspecific classification to a much greater degree". Yes, inconsistency
has existed in the past. Past inconsistency does not validate a continued
inconsistency in naming infraspecific taxa. Responsible taxonomists should
familiarize themselves with these issues and guidelines prior to naming taxa.
> What does appear
> to be case is that this subject (f.chinopetra) is emotive
> enough to induce an expression of opinion, in some cases
> even without first considering the paper (Nelsons).
Yes, I am not personally interested in the f.chinopetra mutant, and this
paper is not readily available to me. I am concerned (or "emotive") about
the trend of naming color mutants as forma, in general, regardless of this
specific case.
> My main discussion point is
> the information provided in Nelsons paper on
> P.g.f.chinopetra or P.g 'white flowered Irish mutant' if you
> prefer.
The latter is more descriptive. If I found the f.chinopetra listed on a
plant list I would have no idea what it looked like. In what way is the
epithet f.chinopetra preferable to the vernacular description
"white-flowered form"?
> What has concerned me is the 'knee
> jerk' reaction that naming plants on flower colour is
> incorrect in the opinion of some without always considering
> all the details and relevant information in the paper first.
I think you have done an excellent job of presenting and expounding on all
the relevant information from the paper. If Nelson has addressed the issue
of WHY he chose to name these plants as forma, and defended this against
the numerous inherent problems of one-character taxa (which we have covered
in this thread), then I have have indeed missed something by not having the
paper. But if Nelson did this I'm sure you'd have mentioned it.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST