Either you are as thick as a brick or you are a lying troll, Colonic. Either
way, you are a total waste of natural resources.

I was not talking about plant taxonomy. The subject was nomenclature.

Those are two more terms for which you are apparently unable to distinguish
the vast difference.

Nomenclature is only one facet to the complexity of taxonomy. Most
horticulturists have no understanding of either of the concepts or their
significance anyway. The subject is way beyond the scope of any basic
horticultural training you may have had. You don't need to understand the
science behind plant identification to be able to plant "pretty flowers" in
a garden.

The practical distinction between a botanical variety and a horticultural
cultivar are purely nomenclatural from a horticultural standpoint. All
clonally propagated plants in the horticultural trade are best considered
cultivars because they are not representative of the actual populations in
the wild or the full range of variability found in a hybrid swarm and are
plants selected purely for their horticultultural merit. Since
horticulturists are only interested in phenotypically (and often
genotypically) uniform clonally propagated plants, they cannot fully
appreciate the range of variation often encountered in wild populations and
their true significance and taxonomic problems they create. All you have to
do is pick out the plants that suit your fancy and disregard all the rest.

When one is faced with a group of unlabeled plants for identification, much
research and familiarity with the particular plant group is required in
finding the proper names for them. Your pontificating and asking for a
magical solution to a complex problem is downright unrealistic, you know it
and that was not the original question anyway. And besides, I would never
tell a jerk like you which methods I actually use anyway. Most people do
very poorly when it comes to identifying plants and they have no idea which
key characters to even look for. The main problem is that there are still no
cultivar registries for a large number of plant groups in cultivation and
that a number of the same cultivars have been named more than once in the
trade. Many cultivar names in the trade are even invalidly published.

Your only interest is horticulture and thus you cannot speak for the complex
problems faced by botanists in classifying plants in the real world. Just
because you don't understand it, that doesn't mean it isn't significant, you
arrogant rectal idiot.


J. Del Col wrote in message
m...
"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message
om...
Its back to school for you, DelColonic.

Welcome to the basics of botanical nomenclature.

Welcome to reality, ace. Taxonomy is not nearly as rigid as you
imply.

I learned the system a long time ago, binky, probably well before you
were born.

The question is whether there is any substantive difference between a
cultivar and a natural variety. Faced with an unlabeled group of
plants that contained both cultivars and natural varieties of the same
species, you would not be able to identify any of the plants as being
one or the other--nobody could.


You have yet to present any substantive evidence at all that there is
a botanical way to distinguish between the two. Your claim that they
are "not at all the same," is, botanically speaking, nonsense.

But should concoct some evidence to the contrary, let us know.

Otherwise, continue your practice of self-proctoskepsis; you might
achieve some insights.



J. Del Col