(Got your list, thank's. It's great!)
Yes, I agree that is a problem but there really should be way for
people who are NOT able to conform to these rules... For example,
I do not know anyone personally who knows one bit of Latin. How
on earth would I (or someone else in this predicament) write
such a descripition? Of course with the advent of e-mail someone
on the list would be able to forward specimen to a botanist on the
list... Not too many regular botanists can even work with CP as
they are so very obscure.
> > D.sp Magaliesberg sounded good!!!!!.
> It sounds terrible.
Doens't sound to bad... Of course it not latinized but that's part
easy to take care at least. But then the sp indicates that it
hasn't been named yet...
> 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_).
Basically, a person should publish what they think to be a new
plant, even if they don't really know what they are doing...
Then, later (maybe even decades) some who does, can fix the
mess? I guess in this way there is at least a paper trail
to follow.
Dave Evans