More Rules and erratum
/G=Loyd/S=Wix/OU=1890CHPI/O=TMGB.URC/@LANGATE.gb.sprint.com
Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:35:00 -0500
From Loyd.Wix@URCGB.SPRINT.COM
Erratum - Re my Golden Wall message. Where I wrote P.puchea
I in fact meant P.pachuca.
More Rules
I'm glad my message got some debate going and we've heard a
lot from the Professional Botanists out there. Although
there are these rules on the formal naming of plants this
doesn't overcome the problems I mentioned in my previous
message. With individuals being able to travel ever more
freely, and the frequency of expeditions to far flung
corners of the earth to do a spot of plant hunting, then the
occurrence of plants getting into cultivation before
official naming will continue.
Obviously such plants are given some name ahead of formal
identification and this seams to be done in one of several
ways each with drawbacks:
1. Named after geographic locations - e.g.'Sierra Mazatecas'
2. Catalogue No' - e.g. Harold Weiners sp. Nova No' 4 (now
called P.rotundiflora)
3. 'Unofficial Latin name' e.g. P.gigantea.
4. 'Fanciful' name - e.g Golden Wall.
Of these 1 is fine if it's the only plant in that location,
and there is nowhere else on Earth going by that name - but
what happens if several similar plants live in the same area
or there are 2 (or more) Sierra Mazatecas? 2. is fine if
it's always given the same catalogue number - what happens
if the plant appears in more than one catalogue? 3. is fine
unless it's published under a different name. As far as I
can see 4. is pretty meaningless!
This whole mess is compounded if the same plant is being
named by more than one (or all) of the above ways. So short
of (somehow) preventing plants getting into cultivation
ahead of official naming, how can we all avoid getting
terribly confused with these unofficial names?
Regards.
Loyd.