Date: Wed, 12 Mar 97 23:56 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg911$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Hello Jan,
> Please read the instructions to the list carefully! The names are
> not *invalid*, they are only replaced by the (unambiguous,
> typified by types of parent species, reproducible, descriptive =>
> 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?
> 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?
> Especially a cross between _Nepenthes anamensis_ (from Indochina) and
> _N. maxima_ (Borneo to New Guinea) cannot be considered taxonomically
> relevant. It is an artificial product only possible in the
> greenhouse and significant for the collector. No speciation process
> (in the sense usually applied) has led to this bastard.
>
> > I mean, is this a rule? It seems a bit misguided here, if it is.
>
> So you have strange views on natural selection, I m afraid.
Well, "the rules" are changing. A while ago you mentioned not knowing
if there is set of rules for naming cloned pets or farm animals.
No there isn't, yet. Breeds can get named and for dogs, the rules
are the most complete. After all, cloning of animals isn't practical
yet but soon it will be. Then there will "cultivar" names for pets
and industrial animals.
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...
> This is only true "cum grano salis". Cultivar names *should* only be
> applied to a single clone. However, the ICNCP allows for cultivar
> group (grex) naming. Thus, all offspring of a single cross *could*
> receive a collective cultivar name.
First time I've come across the meaning of "grex." Thank's for
clearing that up. I have heard the word used before, but never
explained.
> Noone must do that. Everybody is allowed to use bastard formulae or
> scientific names.
Ok, see Jan, I'm like you. I tend to be a lumper. I'd like
lump a number of cultivars under one scientific name since, they
don't appear to have "earned" a cultivar names.
> The rules are not perfect but the people misapplying them (or even
> those who do not know the rules and name plants anyway!) are a much
> more serious problem. Some of the current people are not working. ;-)
Yes, I've noticed. I guess I do agree with the rules, but not
with your veiw on what is important enough to name. DO I finally
have it right?
Dave Evans
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...
Also 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:00 PST