Strange question I know but is there a system for plants similar to the
ISBN system for books whereby each plant type is given a unique ID
code?

Thanks in advance

Neil

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Strange question I know but is there a system for plants similar to the
ISBN system for books whereby each plant type is given a unique ID
code?

Thanks in advance

Neil


Neil there was a chap at Bath University doing just that when I was there a
few years back. Should be out or very close I would think.

Mike

In message .com,
" writes
Strange question I know but is there a system for plants similar to the
ISBN system for books whereby each plant type is given a unique ID
code?

Thanks in advance

Neil

There is not a numeric system. There are two codes; the ICBN
(International Code for Botanical Nomenclature) for wild(ish) plants;
and the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants)
for cultivated plants.

A plant type can have more than one name, if the taxonomy is disputed.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message .com,
" writes
Strange question I know but is there a system for plants similar to the
ISBN system for books whereby each plant type is given a unique ID
code?

There is not a numeric system. There are two codes; the ICBN
(International Code for Botanical Nomenclature) for wild(ish) plants;
and the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants)
for cultivated plants.

A plant type can have more than one name, if the taxonomy is disputed.

Which is as nothing to the names that taxonomists will call one another
during a dispute :-)

To clarify for the original poster, you have names like:

Prunus spinosa
Prunus = plum/cherry genus, P. spinosa = sloe

Vinca major "oxyloba"
Vinca = periwinkle, V. major = greater P., "oxyloba" a
particular variety (probably a geographic variant)

Lonicera x brownii "Dropmore scarlet"
Lonicera = honeysuckle, x brownii = a particular cross,
"Dropmore scarlet" = a particular variety of that cross

There are a lot of variations in the names, but the first two are
always genus and species, and then subspecies, variety, tribe and
other arcane distinctions. Some plants don't form nice, neat groups
and their classification is almost entirely a matter of taste
(brambles are an extreme example).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
" writes
Strange question I know but is there a system for plants similar to the
ISBN system for books whereby each plant type is given a unique ID
code?

Thanks in advance

Neil

There is not a numeric system. There are two codes; the ICBN
(International Code for Botanical Nomenclature) for wild(ish) plants;
and the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants)
for cultivated plants.

A plant type can have more than one name, if the taxonomy is disputed.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

The chap I was with at Bath University was combining ALL known methods of
identification and ALL plants, world wide. How far he has got or did get I
have no idea, but we were remarking on it being a mammoth task.

Anyone know anything about it and the progress of it?

Mike

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

There are a lot of variations in the names, but the first two are
always genus and species, and then subspecies, variety, tribe and other
arcane distinctions.

Tribe and subtribe are the next formal ranks up from genus.

To clarify further (for the original poster) a botanical name is

Genus species [subsp. subspecies] [var.variety] [f. form
[subf. subform] [(original author - at a different rank, or in a
different genus)] author

(I haven't seen any occurrences of subvarieties.)

Some plants don't form nice, neat groups and their classification is
almost entirely a matter of taste (brambles are an extreme example).

Other problematical groups are eyebrights, hawkweeds and dandelions.
(For that matter no-one seems to have a good handle on how to classify
hollyhocks and Sidalceas.)

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

There are a lot of variations in the names, but the first two are
always genus and species, and then subspecies, variety, tribe and other
arcane distinctions.

Tribe and subtribe are the next formal ranks up from genus.

Oops. Thanks for the correction. My memory is failing :-(

To clarify further (for the original poster) a botanical name is

Genus species [subsp. subspecies] [var.variety] [f. form
[subf. subform] [(original author - at a different rank, or in a
different genus)] author

(I haven't seen any occurrences of subvarieties.)

Er, yes, but (a) that is only the current, official scheme. There
have been slightly different schemes in the past, almost certainly
will be in the future, not all authorities follow the rules in
unusual cases, and the scheme doesn't match reality anyway!

I have never found out how the more dogmatic taxonomists[*] claim that
the difference between genetic, environmental and developmental forms
should be described. And, as you know, all can occur in nature.
I am thinking of plants that reproduce vegetatively, which can
change form permanently or semi-permanently for those reasons.

And God alone knows how one should classify lichen and similar
entities - though I know how it is done :-)

My general point here is that it isn't worth being too dogmatic,
and even bothering about absolute precision, as it doesn't always
make taxonomic sense. Forcing one structure into a more rigid and
inappropriate one always produces more confusion than it removes.
This is VERY relevant for the weird collection of forms that make
up the things described as garden varieties.
[*] The sane ones tend to say "That needs discussing over a drink;
shall we adjourn to the Trug and Dibber?"


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.