| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Taxonomy rant!
Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that
aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
And also, my cursor is raging around the screen like a mad person! It won't
obey me! It is possessed! I hate that, when the mouse misbehaves! Aacck. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana,
Yeah, the times are a' changin'. This happened a few years ago. It's still not widely accepted, but since the AOS has standardized on the Kew Monocot Checklist for names, at least we know what taxonomic camp the AOS has aligned themselves with. And the Laelias are all jumbled up, too. The Brazilian ones are considered Sophronitis by Kew. Only the Mexican Laelias kept the name Laelia. -Eric in SF www.orchidphotos.org "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. |
Taxonomy rant!
If they are to be taken seriously, rants should contain more words, more
words IN CAPITOLS and a few exclamation point!!!! All the question marks were a good idea. Makes you sound desperate. Colmanara Wildcatts have not been Colmanara for more than a year now because some of the species in it's background got moved into new genera. I am sure we can find evidence that the editors of "Orchids" have been asleep for more than one issue. There is a wide gulf between taxonomy and horticulture and the hort industry watches the scientists, but doesn't always rush out to change tags when one publishes a paper. If the AOS editors can not even keep up... "They" could have at least changed it to something pronounceable. "How do you pronounce 'C-a-t-t-l-e-y-a aurantiaca'? "I say Gawr-eee-ANTH-ee aurantica, but pronunciation advice is like asking for culture advice; no two orchid growers agree." "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Check for grit in the ball.
K "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... And also, my cursor is raging around the screen like a mad person! It won't obey me! It is possessed! I hate that, when the mouse misbehaves! Aacck. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana..... So what? Have the plants themselves changed? It happened with Tolumnia a long time ago, yet they remain as lovely as ever. "A rose by any other name...." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana..... So what? Have the plants themselves changed? It happened with Tolumnia a long time ago, yet they remain as lovely as ever. "A rose by any other name...." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana,
If your mouse is not a roller ball, you may be suffering from a computer virus or trojan taking over your machine. Spybot 1.4 is good for cleaning out these troublesome parasites on your machine and it is free. I have used it for years and it is great. I bought Spyware Doctor a week ago and ran it on a machine that Spybot 1.4 had been protecting for the last year. Spyware Doctor could not find one problem on that computer. http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/index.html Mick ====================== "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... And also, my cursor is raging around the screen like a mad person! It won't obey me! It is possessed! I hate that, when the mouse misbehaves! Aacck. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. I asked my aurantiaca how it felt about this. It just shrugged and laughed. "At least we're still orchids," it said. "Imagine how Pluto feels." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
The mouse is on a roller ball. Anyway, Frank changed out the mouse and
replaced it with the one from his machine. Mine's now working fine, and the naughty mouse is naughty on his machine. It's shot. He's using an old one from the lap top for a spare right now, until we can get to Staples. Thanks for the suggestions, though. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
You are correct!!
Truth in naming NOW!!! Uniformity NOW!!! Frosted Mini Wheats NOW!!! Diana "al" wrote in message news:es1Pg.259$uj3.187@trnddc08... If they are to be taken seriously, rants should contain more words, more words IN CAPITOLS and a few exclamation point!!!! All the question marks were a good idea. Makes you sound desperate. Colmanara Wildcatts have not been Colmanara for more than a year now because some of the species in it's background got moved into new genera. I am sure we can find evidence that the editors of "Orchids" have been asleep for more than one issue. There is a wide gulf between taxonomy and horticulture and the hort industry watches the scientists, but doesn't always rush out to change tags when one publishes a paper. If the AOS editors can not even keep up... "They" could have at least changed it to something pronounceable. "How do you pronounce 'C-a-t-t-l-e-y-a aurantiaca'? "I say Gawr-eee-ANTH-ee aurantica, but pronunciation advice is like asking for culture advice; no two orchid growers agree." "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
So what? Have the plants themselves changed?
No, JD. But, the "so what" is that we need to be able to talk to each other. People are lining up as splitters and lumpers. The judges don't all accept the changes. The AOS, in its own magazine, is confusing the issue by calling a species different names in a pictorial article. This stuff seems to be causing consternation and confusion within the orchid growing community, and if the AOS and the judges can't get it right, how are the rest of us supposed to do so? Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Good one, JD. Poor Pluto!
Diana wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. I asked my aurantiaca how it felt about this. It just shrugged and laughed. "At least we're still orchids," it said. "Imagine how Pluto feels." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Pluto! PLUTO!! Pluto's a damn cartoon dog. Imagine how "Zena" (2003
UB313) feels! She's bigger than Pluto and never even got to BE a planet. Like Pluto, she, Chiron and Eros are now officially "planettes" or "dwarf planets"! Imagine being called a PLANETTE! Gezz. It even sounds condecending. "It all in how you say it, but really we planets just don't associate with her kind." And to add insult to injury the International Astronomical Union has voted to name her Eris (rather than Zena) after the Greek goddess of discord and strife. I tell you she's not going to be happy about this! She's even got a moon!...Oh wait....a "planette companion" named Dysnomia after the daemon spirit of LAWLESSNESS... When will it end!??? It not over, that's for sure. This kind of thing never ends. I tell you the whole friken universe is going to update their star charts and then the IAU on this puny rock will reclassify everything again... As if it just DOESN'T MATTER what this constant confusion does to interstellar tourism!! wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. I asked my aurantiaca how it felt about this. It just shrugged and laughed. "At least we're still orchids," it said. "Imagine how Pluto feels." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
I can't beat that. Al's got his aluminum foil antennae on again.
Militant orchid lovers UNITE NOW!!! Truth in naming NOW!!! Uniformity NOW!!! Frosted Mini Wheats NOW!!! Diana "al" wrote in message news:8YiPg.761$GO2.702@trnddc01... Pluto! PLUTO!! Pluto's a damn cartoon dog. Imagine how "Zena" (2003 UB313) feels! She's bigger than Pluto and never even got to BE a planet. Like Pluto, she, Chiron and Eros are now officially "planettes" or "dwarf planets"! Imagine being called a PLANETTE! Gezz. It even sounds condecending. "It all in how you say it, but really we planets just don't associate with her kind." And to add insult to injury the International Astronomical Union has voted to name her Eris (rather than Zena) after the Greek goddess of discord and strife. I tell you she's not going to be happy about this! She's even got a moon!...Oh wait....a "planette companion" named Dysnomia after the daemon spirit of LAWLESSNESS... When will it end!??? It not over, that's for sure. This kind of thing never ends. I tell you the whole friken universe is going to update their star charts and then the IAU on this puny rock will reclassify everything again... As if it just DOESN'T MATTER what this constant confusion does to interstellar tourism!! wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. I asked my aurantiaca how it felt about this. It just shrugged and laughed. "At least we're still orchids," it said. "Imagine how Pluto feels." J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote:
Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. :-P |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote:
Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-) |
Taxonomy rant!
I've been sitting here biting my tongue, Andrew. The new Jones book is a must
have for its outstanding coverage of Australian natives (orchids, that is). But, speaking entirely personally, the taxonomic restructures make me cross. On 17 Sep 2006 17:49:45 -0700, "Andrew" wrote: Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-) Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana,
I don't change the labels anymore. Some taxonomist in the future will be working on his PhD and move them back to Cattleya. Look at poor Doritis, Eric Christenson put it back into Phalaenopsis over 5 years ago. Even Phal violacea was made bellina. A couple of weeks ago I still asked Al if the violacea that I was buying from him was the blue/purple violacea or an off color bellina. If they didn't change the names it wouldn't give us anything to talk about. Good growing, Gene "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Rob Griesbach says (I am paraphrasing) we probably will never see a pure
Phal violacea awarded again because the flower size of the species is very small. There are some HUGE violacea clones out there but, he says, they were outcrossed with Phal bellina when it was still called P. violacea var. borneo. This variety or species (Whatever you want to call it) has a flower almost twice size of the species violacea right off the tree of an adjacent island. After some size was bred into it, then the solid color was bred back into the resulting strain over several more generations. The true violacea are just a little larger than an american quarter. Those labled as violacea that are larger than that by nearly double that size are probably Phal. Samera (violacea x bellina) Now, the larger flowered violacea cultivars MAY be awarded as Phal violacea somewhere in the future, but following the above logic and accepting the split between the two forms, they are not pure Phal violacea. As delcolja's C. (or) G. aurantiaca said, "So What?" Well, here's a what....Even more than just being able to talk about a plant and have people know which you mean, to some it may be important to know what is in the background of their hybrids, and it gets harder and harder if the names change every half decade to know just what you have and predict what a mating might produce. Phal Grosbeak is a good example. From the single award description, you can kind see that somewhere in the grex tree, one or more of those violaceas HAD TO BE what we know call Phal bellina. But when it was registered it wasn't. And that's an easy example. The grex registry is littered with errors that were literally created by taxonomic changes after the fact. In the small favors department, we should all be glad that (apparently) Guarianthe and Cattleya both have the same Latin gender, otherwise we'd all have to slowly adjust, not only to the new genus name at the front of the binomial but to a new spelling at the end of it. And as for Doritis being a Phal, I still have no idea how the registrar is going to deal with that knot. I haven't noticed any new Doritis hybrids registered as Phals yet but if the RHS orchid registrar is following Kew's checklist,... :-D...(and it would be a wacky world if they weren't).... then it should happen eventually. And you know it only gets worse (depending on where you stand) as genetics plays an ever larger role in determining the relationship among species. It looks like the Guarianthe speration was genetically motivated. And now for an OT supposition: Take a look at your grex-registry-of-choice and look up Phal Grosbeak to see who registered it. Then wonder outloud while stroking your chin in a Jon Steward kind of way, "What appellation could the kids in that poor guy's grade school have used to taunt him on the play ground? hummmm. Al P.S. how come everybody else's doppleganger gets it's own email address and I have to share mine with mine? "Gene Schurg" wrote in message news:VTmPg.2139$W13.179@trnddc05... Diana, I don't change the labels anymore. Some taxonomist in the future will be working on his PhD and move them back to Cattleya. Look at poor Doritis, Eric Christenson put it back into Phalaenopsis over 5 years ago. Even Phal violacea was made bellina. A couple of weeks ago I still asked Al if the violacea that I was buying from him was the blue/purple violacea or an off color bellina. If they didn't change the names it wouldn't give us anything to talk about. Good growing, Gene "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
RBG Kew and RHS are separate organizations. The orchid registrar at RHS
doesn't have to use the taxonomy in the Kew checklist. -danny |
Taxonomy rant!
K Barrett wrote:
Check for grit in the ball. K "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... And also, my cursor is raging around the screen like a mad person! It won't obey me! It is possessed! I hate that, when the mouse misbehaves! Aacck. Diana Kath, this one had me laughing! It came under Al's post and I thought you were replying to him before I saw Diana's quote!! (Al, you got grit in your ball too???) Reka |
Taxonomy rant!
probably, I can hear it when I shake my head vigorously.
I have one of those laser mice. It behaves badly on reflective surfaces and sometimes if it gets a bit of hair up in the shiny hole it makes the cursor jump around. "Reka" wrote in message ... (Al, you got grit in your ball too???) Reka |
Taxonomy rant!
I have read the registrar discussing the merits of allowing the registration
of matings that include unique color forms of species that have already been registered. I think he was saying it filled a horticultural need. I think it was written in one of the IPA journals. The RHS and the AOS do stick kind of close together on this kind of thing, and the AOS is using it, but I did assume that Kew and the RHS were 'together'. The monocot checklist is cool. I was looking at it again last night. The list of orchid species names is so long... The search page is very well put together and the easiest way to use it: just set the family to ochidaceae and then select a genus http://www.kew.org/wcsp/reportbuilder.do?method=Reset I don't understand what "unplaced names" means. Phalaenopsis stobartiana Rchb.f. is in this group. "danny" wrote in message ... RBG Kew and RHS are separate organizations. The orchid registrar at RHS doesn't have to use the taxonomy in the Kew checklist. -danny |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote:
Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). As far as I can tell, the picture on 661 is the only error. Everywhere else, the species are listed as Guarianthe bowringiana, G. aurantiaca, etc. When used in hybrids, they're listed as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). Presumably the "syn. Cattleya" reflects the fact that the grex names have not been changed wholesale: Guarianthe bowringiana x C. Armstrongiae is still Cattleya Porcia. Some of the recent molecular work on which the taxonomy is based can be found in this paper: http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf As best I can tell, if the C. bowringiana group remain in Cattleya, then Rhyncholaelia and, possibly, Brassavola, would also need to be folded into Cattleya. That would muck up the nomenclature of hybrids almost as much, and it wouldn't solve all the problems, because a couple of the unifoliate cattleyas are closer to the Brazilian laelias than to other cattleyas. I find a certain appeal in an extreme lumper approach which would place all of Cattleya, Laelia, Brassavola, Rhyncholaelia, and Sophronitis in a single genus. That way, all the fiddly inter-relationships among the smaller groups could be worked out without disturbing the genus-level taxonomy. If you want to blame something, blame the grex registration system which makes the nomenclature of orchid hybrids dependent on scientific nomenclature that was developed when the plants were first described and were poorly understood. It's hardly surprising that the nomenclature needs to be revised in light of new data. If orchids used a cultivar system like most other ornamental plant groups, it wouldn't matter so much if the genus changed. Perhaps a better solution would have been a simplified Grex system where all Cattleya alliance hybrids get a single hybrid genus name (e.g. Cattleyahybrid, or something). But, it's too late now. I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not changing my tags yet. Nick |
Taxonomy rant!
I like that too. Good link.
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not changing my tags yet. Nick |
Taxonomy rant!
P.S., that was good point about the grex registration system's inflexibility
of structure compared with what seems to be taxonomy's fluid structure. The two systems do not play well together, that's for sure. I think the registrar was testing the waters when he made the genus level changes in the Oncidium group. It was unprecedented to go back in the records and make wholesale changes. But the orchid world did not end or really even seem to notice. The mass production vendors still call it Colmanara Wildcat. It was also one of the least disruptive of the wholesale changes looming in the records that he could have chosen to confront. wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). As far as I can tell, the picture on 661 is the only error. Everywhere else, the species are listed as Guarianthe bowringiana, G. aurantiaca, etc. When used in hybrids, they're listed as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). Presumably the "syn. Cattleya" reflects the fact that the grex names have not been changed wholesale: Guarianthe bowringiana x C. Armstrongiae is still Cattleya Porcia. Some of the recent molecular work on which the taxonomy is based can be found in this paper: http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf As best I can tell, if the C. bowringiana group remain in Cattleya, then Rhyncholaelia and, possibly, Brassavola, would also need to be folded into Cattleya. That would muck up the nomenclature of hybrids almost as much, and it wouldn't solve all the problems, because a couple of the unifoliate cattleyas are closer to the Brazilian laelias than to other cattleyas. I find a certain appeal in an extreme lumper approach which would place all of Cattleya, Laelia, Brassavola, Rhyncholaelia, and Sophronitis in a single genus. That way, all the fiddly inter-relationships among the smaller groups could be worked out without disturbing the genus-level taxonomy. If you want to blame something, blame the grex registration system which makes the nomenclature of orchid hybrids dependent on scientific nomenclature that was developed when the plants were first described and were poorly understood. It's hardly surprising that the nomenclature needs to be revised in light of new data. If orchids used a cultivar system like most other ornamental plant groups, it wouldn't matter so much if the genus changed. Perhaps a better solution would have been a simplified Grex system where all Cattleya alliance hybrids get a single hybrid genus name (e.g. Cattleyahybrid, or something). But, it's too late now. I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not changing my tags yet. Nick |
Taxonomy rant!
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:56:03 -0400 in Diana Kulaga wrote:
So what? Have the plants themselves changed? No, JD. But, the "so what" is that we need to be able to talk to each other. People are lining up as splitters and lumpers. The judges don't all accept the changes. The AOS, in its own magazine, is confusing the issue by calling a species different names in a pictorial article. This stuff seems to be causing consternation and confusion within the orchid growing community, and if the AOS and the judges can't get it right, how are the rest of us supposed to do so? Isn't that the scientific method when the devil is inthe details? Diana -- Chris Dukes elfick willg: you can't use dell to beat people, it wouldn't stand up to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat |
Taxonomy rant!
The changes make Dave "cross". Written like the true gentleman he always is!
S Diana "Dave Gillingham" wrote in message ... I've been sitting here biting my tongue, Andrew. The new Jones book is a must have for its outstanding coverage of Australian natives (orchids, that is). But, speaking entirely personally, the taxonomic restructures make me cross. On 17 Sep 2006 17:49:45 -0700, "Andrew" wrote: Diana Kulaga wrote: Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-) Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
Taxonomy rant!
Gene,
I think a lot of folks are resisting tag changes. We have a floor display to install in late October. Wonder how the judges will treat labels that do not reflect current taxo thinking? Our registrar has said she'll reflect the synonyms on the tag. As far as giving us something to talk about, sometimes I think it's more like justifying their own existence. Either that, or just a way to make us crazier than we already are! Diana "Gene Schurg" wrote in message news:VTmPg.2139$W13.179@trnddc05... Diana, I don't change the labels anymore. Some taxonomist in the future will be working on his PhD and move them back to Cattleya. Look at poor Doritis, Eric Christenson put it back into Phalaenopsis over 5 years ago. Even Phal violacea was made bellina. A couple of weeks ago I still asked Al if the violacea that I was buying from him was the blue/purple violacea or an off color bellina. If they didn't change the names it wouldn't give us anything to talk about. Good growing, Gene "Diana Kulaga" wrote in message ... Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto bowringiana. And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind of labeling is that? "Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS (skinneri x aurantiaca)" And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in the one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya). This is getting stupid. Diana |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote: The changes make Dave "cross," she said crucially. Did you hear the swiftie puzzles on NPR's All Things Considered Sunday Edition? J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Diana Kulaga wrote: Our registrar has said she'll reflect the synonyms on the tag. -having visions of plant tags soon being the size of index cards- -or a little orchid in a little pot tied to something the size of the manhattan phone directory- maybe it would be easier just to attach thumb drives or RFID chips to them. ;-) --j_a PS--i'm all for the mini wheats. |
Taxonomy rant!
J,
Please explain or pray tell. What are swiftie puzzles, NPR's etc.? -- Cheers Wendy No Spam Email Address Invalid wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: The changes make Dave "cross," she said crucially. Did you hear the swiftie puzzles on NPR's All Things Considered Sunday Edition? J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Yes! Loved it. I'm one of those foolhardy people who does the Times
crossword every day in ink. Sometimes I think Will Shortz stays awake nights finding ways to edit the Saturday puzzle so that he garners the most cusses from his audience. G I see you will haunt me with these! I will need to start to fight back, y'know. Diana wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: The changes make Dave "cross," she said crucially. Did you hear the swiftie puzzles on NPR's All Things Considered Sunday Edition? J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
NPR is National Public Radio. Local community colleges generally carry it on
their stations. Each Sunday at around 8:35 eastern time, the puzzle editor of the NY Times, Will Shortz, joins the program along with the winner of the previous weeks winner. He then presents a word puzzle for the listener to solve, in parts. It's fun. "Swifties" are Tom Swifties, where a statement is attributed to Tom (or another individual) and a descriptive word is added at the end. For example: "The bypass was successful, the cardiologist said heartily!" More word fun here, including the occasional swifties: http://www.miniclip.com/games/hangaroo-2/en/ Diana "wendy7" wrote in message news:dQFPg.15377$WK4.5289@fed1read06... J, Please explain or pray tell. What are swiftie puzzles, NPR's etc.? -- Cheers Wendy No Spam Email Address Invalid wrote in message oups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: The changes make Dave "cross," she said crucially. Did you hear the swiftie puzzles on NPR's All Things Considered Sunday Edition? J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
Or a link to the entire genealogy, reached by strewing shredded mini wheats,
she said ___________ Fill it in! Diana wrote in message ups.com... Diana Kulaga wrote: Our registrar has said she'll reflect the synonyms on the tag. -having visions of plant tags soon being the size of index cards- -or a little orchid in a little pot tied to something the size of the manhattan phone directory- maybe it would be easier just to attach thumb drives or RFID chips to them. ;-) --j_a PS--i'm all for the mini wheats. |
Taxonomy rant!
wendy7 wrote: J, Please explain or pray tell. What are swiftie puzzles, NPR's etc.? NPR is National Public Radio here in the US. All Things Considered Sunday Edition is a news and feature show on Sunday mornings. It has a puzzle feature hosted by Will Shortz, the man who composes the Sunday crossword puzzle in the New York Times. Swifties are made by using a punning adverb to follow a brief quotation. They get their name from the Tom Swift books that were popular reading for boys up until the 1950's or so. Tom Swift was a boy genius who was always coming up with amazing inventions. In the books no character simply said something; they always said something like this. "The airplane is on fire!" Tom said heatedly. That's a Swifty. Some other examples-- "I can't solve this puzzle," Tom said cluelessly. "That's a weighty problem," Tom said heavily. "I may have to go to prison," Tom said penitently Etc, ad infinitum. J. Del Col |
Taxonomy rant!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:42:37 GMT, "al" wrote:
probably, I can hear it when I shake my head vigorously. I have one of those laser mice. It behaves badly on reflective surfaces and sometimes if it gets a bit of hair up in the shiny hole it makes the cursor jump around. This is a two keyboard morning.......... Coffe is dangerous and so is Al. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
Taxonomy rant!
al wrote:
probably, I can hear it when I shake my head vigorously. I have one of those laser mice. It behaves badly on reflective surfaces and sometimes if it gets a bit of hair up in the shiny hole it makes the cursor jump around. "Reka" wrote in message ... (Al, you got grit in your ball too???) Reka Sounds better than grit in your balls to me...but then I have no physical balls...only figurative ones. Reka |
Taxonomy rant!
At the risk of turning this thread a bit blue:
....for all the attention *those* demand, they remain relatively silent when I shake them. Whatever's in there it isn't grit. And you should probably be glad you don't have them. Despite all the pleasure they can provide, they do have a direct influence on the course of one's life and once they have spoken, they can not be overridden easily by the brain. Most of the time one just kind of goes along for the ride and the goofy looking reward at the end. Humans are indeed strange creatures. "Reka" wrote in message . .. Sounds better than grit in your balls to me...but then I have no physical balls...only figurative ones. Reka |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter