On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it
into my head and never, ever remember it.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Broadback writes:
|
| Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
| seem to change plant names?

Fundamentalist dogma.

Seriously. There was an agreement on how to slected a particular name
if several authors had used different ones for the same species, or if
what were two species turned out to be variants of one. Fine. All
well and good, but the (botanical) religious ferverts got the upper
hand over the (horticultural) pragmatists and turned a sound rule into
a Holy Doctrine.

There is a pragmatic rule for genera, which is very necessary to avoid
generic names changing every time someone discovers a mouldering paper
to the Botanical Society of Novosibirsk in 1800. But there is no such
rule for specific names, which is why we get abominations like Viburnum
farreri - which is STILL called V. fragrans in horticulture, quite
reasonably. This interacts with the ongoing war between the 'splitters'
and 'clumpers' religious sects, because they need to fiddle the names
every time they reshuffle the species.

There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about
conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For
example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over
Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia.

One other cause of name changes is embracing of the principle of
monophyly by taxonomists, combined with new data from DNA sequencing.
(The whole of Cactaceae is nested in one genus of Portulacaceae, but
this is 'fixed' by splitting that genus - not by the joking suggestion
to sink all several thousand species of cacti into that genus; and all
other genera of Cactaceae into the genus Perevskia - I haven't seen a
proposed solution for this. Data is not always unambiguous, so botanists
tend to be conservative about changing generic circumscriptions -
waiting until the data is clear.)

There's problems in the pipeline with Hibiscus, and even with generic
circumscriptions between Malva, Lavatera and Althaea.

All right, that's the jaundiced viewpoint, and you can can equally well
spin the same facts into a 'best effort' solution to an intractable
problem, handicapped by reactionary and carping ignoramuses :-)

The root cause is that, as Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure
and never simple. And dividing even the higher plants into species
is most definitely a truth of that form! So all schemes will be
unsatisfactory, and arbitrary rules are needed but absolute ones will
always get individual cases wrong. It IS an intractable problem.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 25/2/07 10:03, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , BoyPete
writes
snip
Yes, I understand that now. Still, it's very off-putting to the likes of me
to see all that Latin in a post, and I tend to skip them.....possibly
missing some useful info.

Botanical names are no harder, in principle, to cope with than
vernacular names. All you have to do is not let them intimidate you.

I'm guessing that for some people it's to do with pronunciation, too. But
if you break it down into chewable syllables, it's much easier. And as to
the *correct* way to pronounce things I wouldn't even begin to consider that
as off putting because there seem to be as many variations in that field as
there are plants to learn about. It's the old CLEMatis opposed to CleMAYtis
thing and doesn't matter a jot, IMO, except as a bit of fun to argue about.
;-)

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

In message , Sacha
writes
On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it
into my head and never, ever remember it.

Aloysia triphylla. (I had to look up the triphylla bit.)

Both triphylla and citriodora are old epithets for this plant;
presumably triphylla is the older. Both have a record of usage.

Both epithets were original published in Verbena. Lippia is an older
name than Aloysia, so the choice of Aloysia is presumably a result of
the division of various plants among genera, rather than of the
application of the principle of priority.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Feb 25, 9:55 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes

How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general
rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is
sort of extra information, style of thing?

Depends on what you mean by "the plant". The first word is the genus
which identifies a group of related plants, and the second word is the
specific epithet, which identifies the species, which is probably what a
botanist would identify as the plant.

I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples
being a type of rose and so forth.

After that it all gets more complicated -

-snip complicated stuff-

You'll get no argument from me there... ;-)

--
Rob

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about
| conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For
| example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over
| Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia.

When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel
that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings?

[ Beyond this point, I apologise to anyone who has trouble botanical
jargon; skip the posting. ]

| One other cause of name changes is embracing of the principle of
| monophyly by taxonomists, combined with new data from DNA sequencing.

Er, yes, but the very concepts of that are likely to be confusing to
someone who had trouble with Latin names! Also, there is a serious
flaw with the basic concept of monophyly, because we know that it
isn't even remotely true at the specific level and it is unclear how
reliable it is even for 'wild' taxa at the generic level. It's OK
for vertebrates, but a poor model for anything else. It doesn't
really become reliable for the higher plants until more like the
tribe level (depending on family, of course).

I know that I have asked before, but I am still interested in any
papers that do any reasonably sound analysis of a fairly wide area;
I have no interest in a new classification of Arabis with especial
reference to geographical variation, for example. If you bump across
one, please tell me.

But ANY paper that PROPOSES a classification on the basis of a
selected subset of characteristics without describing the effect on
the other known ones is irretrievably wrong-headed, as we all knew
40 years ago! And most of the ones that I found were like that :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 9:55 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes

How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general
rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is
sort of extra information, style of thing?

Depends on what you mean by "the plant". The first word is the genus
which identifies a group of related plants, and the second word is the
specific epithet, which identifies the species, which is probably what a
botanist would identify as the plant.

I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples
being a type of rose and so forth.

Not all Prunus are cherries - Prunus also includes almonds, plums,
damsons, peaches, nectarines, apricots, bullaces, sloes, cherry laurels,
etc.

Apples (like Cherries) belong to the rose family (Rosaceae), but the
term rose is usually restricted to genus Rosa, which doesn't include
apples (which are more closely related to rowans, whitebeams, pears,
hawthorns, medlars, etc). That's when rose isn't being applied to some
even more distantly related plant, such as desert rose, rock rose, sun
rose, Confederate rose, stone rose, Rose of China, Rose of Sharon.

After that it all gets more complicated -

-snip complicated stuff-

You'll get no argument from me there... ;-)

--
Rob


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:30:13 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it
into my head and never, ever remember it.


Perhaps you could just call it the Plant Formerly Known as Lemon Verbena :-)



--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

On 25/2/07 11:09, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it
into my head and never, ever remember it.

Aloysia triphylla. (I had to look up the triphylla bit.)

Thanks, Stewart - saved me a trip downstairs to get the Plant Finder!

Both triphylla and citriodora are old epithets for this plant;
presumably triphylla is the older. Both have a record of usage.

Both epithets were original published in Verbena. Lippia is an older
name than Aloysia, so the choice of Aloysia is presumably a result of
the division of various plants among genera, rather than of the
application of the principle of priority.

Er, yes. ;-) I'll feel better when the aspirin start to work.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes
| There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about
| conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For
| example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over
| Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia.

When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel
that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings?

I don't know when it was introduced.

I doubt that the relevant committee would reverse a 40 year old name
change. But, if I understand the situation with Vibernum dubium,
fragrans and farreri (Viburnum fragans Loisel. a rarely used synonym of
Viburnum dubium, and an early homonym of the widely used Viburnum
fragrans Bunge), a proposal for conservation in a similar situation
would probably pass nowadays.

The orphan plant Cedrela alternifolia (it was known not to be a Cedrela,
but no-one knew what it really was) was recently identified as a
specimen of the plant known as Luehea speciosa, thus making, as C.
alternatifolia was the earlier name, L. alternifolia the correct name.
However in the meantime everyone had used L. speciosa, even if most of
the usage was confined to botanical manuals (e.g. De Candolle's
Prodromus) and Neotropical floras (e.g. Martius' Flora Brasiliensis).
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 25/2/07 12:16, in article
, "Sally Thompson"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:30:13 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it
into my head and never, ever remember it.


Perhaps you could just call it the Plant Formerly Known as Lemon Verbena :-)


Stewart's given me the correct name but I'm taking no bets that I'll
remember it. I must admit that I have a sneaky preference for Lippia
citrodora because it trips off the tongue more easily and to me, sounds
prettier, daft though that is!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On Feb 25, 11:33 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes

I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples
being a type of rose and so forth.

Not all Prunus are cherries - Prunus also includes almonds, plums,
damsons, peaches, nectarines, apricots, bullaces, sloes, cherry laurels,
etc.

I don't think I suggested that. I may not be much of a botanist/
horticulturalist, but I recognise a false syllogism when I see one.

Apples (like Cherries) belong to the rose family (Rosaceae), but the
term rose is usually restricted to genus Rosa, which doesn't include
apples (which are more closely related to rowans, whitebeams, pears,
hawthorns, medlars, etc). That's when rose isn't being applied to some
even more distantly related plant, such as desert rose, rock rose, sun
rose, Confederate rose, stone rose, Rose of China, Rose of Sharon.

So Rosaceae (the family) is distinct from Rosa (the genus)? I live and
learn. Would I be correct in saying that Rosa is a subset of Rosaceae?
--
Rob

"Sally Thompson" wrote in message
al.net...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:30:13 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 25/2/07 08:57, in article ,
"Broadback"
wrote:

snip
Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often
seem to change plant names?

It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical
pov.
I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that
lovely
lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also
known
as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get
it
into my head and never, ever remember it.


Perhaps you could just call it the Plant Formerly Known as Lemon Verbena
:-)
Sally in Shropshire, UK

Or "that yellow shrubby thing we got from aunty June..."
Jenny :~)

In message .com, Rob
Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 11:33 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes

I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples
being a type of rose and so forth.

Not all Prunus are cherries - Prunus also includes almonds, plums,
damsons, peaches, nectarines, apricots, bullaces, sloes, cherry laurels,
etc.

I don't think I suggested that. I may not be much of a botanist/
horticulturalist, but I recognise a false syllogism when I see one.

Sorry. I wasn't sure what you meant, so I included the clarification
anyway.

Apples (like Cherries) belong to the rose family (Rosaceae), but the
term rose is usually restricted to genus Rosa, which doesn't include
apples (which are more closely related to rowans, whitebeams, pears,
hawthorns, medlars, etc). That's when rose isn't being applied to some
even more distantly related plant, such as desert rose, rock rose, sun
rose, Confederate rose, stone rose, Rose of China, Rose of Sharon.

So Rosaceae (the family) is distinct from Rosa (the genus)? I live and
learn. Would I be correct in saying that Rosa is a subset of Rosaceae?
--

Yes. The genus Rosa is part or all [1] of the tribe Roseae which is part
of subfamily Rosoideae which is part of family Rosaceae.
Rob



[1] It seems to be a matter of taste among botanists as to whether to
break off a few fragments of Rosa as separate genera or not.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel
| that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings?
|
| I don't know when it was introduced.

I know that it was after 1970.

| I doubt that the relevant committee would reverse a 40 year old name
| change. But, if I understand the situation with Vibernum dubium,
| fragrans and farreri (Viburnum fragans Loisel. a rarely used synonym of
| Viburnum dubium, and an early homonym of the widely used Viburnum
| fragrans Bunge), a proposal for conservation in a similar situation
| would probably pass nowadays.

That's what I thought :-(

The point there (and with some other widely grown plants, the names
of which escape me for now), that name change replaced a 100 year
established and widespread usage. Even today, I suspect that the
name V. fragrans is more commonly published than V. farreri. In
fact, I doubt that V. farreri will EVER replace V. fragrans in
horticultural usage.

| The orphan plant Cedrela alternifolia (it was known not to be a Cedrela,
| but no-one knew what it really was) was recently identified as a
| specimen of the plant known as Luehea speciosa, thus making, as C.
| alternatifolia was the earlier name, L. alternifolia the correct name.
| However in the meantime everyone had used L. speciosa, even if most of
| the usage was confined to botanical manuals (e.g. De Candolle's
| Prodromus) and Neotropical floras (e.g. Martius' Flora Brasiliensis).

Which is an example of "who gives a damn?" Specialists will know,
not merely what are the correct names, but what dates and contexts
are likely to use which names. The killer with things like V. fragrans
is that you STILL need to know the context, because it was SUCH a major
error to rename it that most people ignored the change.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.