In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards'

But wasn't that more about what plants popular names applied to? - a
well known source of confusion, and nothing to do with taxonomy as such
Do you have the Latin name for collards?

I don't know which plant you mean by collards, any more than I know
which plant you would mean by 'gillyflower'. No amount of looking at DNA
and revisiting current classification is going to clear up the common
names of plants, which are applied without great regard to their
underlying relationships - lesser and greater celandine, for example!

Are you saying that there are plants within the brassicas which should
not be? Or conversely, that plants not at present considered to be
brassicas which you believe to be brassicas? Or are you making a plea
for common names to be more nearly aligned with botanical
classification?
Any new classification should hopefully clarify all of those points.

I think it should throw more light on how accurately existing
classifications mirror evolutionary history, but I can't see that it can
help in any way with common names.

But what I was asking you is are you aware of any greater taxonomic
confusion among the brassicas than among other plants (other, of course,
than the problem of common names which have never attempted to mirror
taxonomy and which may be used by different parts of the country to
refer to different plants)


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/