Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
nomenclature
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Nomenclature | Plant Science | |||
Nomenclature | Orchids | |||
Nomenclature question | Orchids | |||
Raspberry nomenclature | Plant Science | |||
Researching nomenclature changes (gonolobus to matelea) | Plant Science |