In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 5:39 am, "Dave Poole" wrote:
Alan Holmes wrote:
Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots,
strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn?

Brassica oleracea 'gemmifera', Pisum sativum, Brassica oleracea,
Daucum carota, Fragaria x ananasa, Phaseolus coccinea, Zea mays.

Now that was educational. I saw Pisum sativum, thought "surely peas
can't be a type of garlic!" and googled. I now know that sativa means
sown or cultivated.

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?
--
Rob

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.

After that it all gets more complicated - species can be divided into
subspecies, varieties (e.g. Malva moschata var. heterophylla, which is a
variety of musk mallow with less divided leaves), forms (e.g. Malva
moschata f. alba, which is the white-flowered form) and even subforms,
and there are also cultivars - cultivated varieties - of several
different categories, and also selling names. For example Lavatera olbia
'Eyecatcher' is a cultivar of Lavatera olbia, and Lavatera x clementii
Chamallow is a selling name of the cultivar Lavatera x clementii
'Innovera'. Cultivars can be arranged in groups, e.g. Malva sylvestris
Sterile Blue Group, consisting of the sterile (are they all?)
blue-flowered forms of the common mallow.

There are hybrids between subspecies, species and even genera giving
rise to nothogenera (e.g. x Sorbopyrus, which is a hybrids between a
Sorbus - I forget whether it was whitebeam or a rowan - and a pear),
nothospecies (e.g. Lavatera x clementii, the common shrubby Lavatera of
gardens, which is a hybrid between the shrubby Lavatera olbia and the
herbaceous Lavatera thuringiaca) and nothosubspecies. Nomenclature-wise,
when you get to rhododendrons and orchids you also have grexes, which
include all hybrids of a particular parentage.

In the case of large - or even not so large - genera, genera are divided
into subgenera, sections, subsections, series and subseries. For example
the common mallow, and several weedy species belong to section Malva of
genus Malva, and the musk mallow, Malva moschata, the hollyhock mallow,
Malva alcea, and their hybrid Malva x intermedia, belong to section
Bismalva. Subgenera etc are not usually represented in the name of a
plant.

Above the genus plants are grouped into larger categories (all of these,
including the ones described above, are collectively known as taxa -
singular taxon). The required ranks are family, order, class [1] and
division (or phylum), but botanists can also use subtribe, tribe,
subfamily, suborder, subclass and subdivision if they want. (Zoologists
have even more choices.) Informal groups of genera - groups or alliance
- fill the gap between genus and subtribe in some groups.

[1] The recent classifications from the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group don't
use the rank of class, but define a number of informal supraordinal
taxa.
--
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 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 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

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:
|
| 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.

And, if you like tribal warfare, just try and work out the level at
which the pear group (including quinces) is separated from the apple
group :-) That feud has been simmering for a century and a half,
with most people saying "a plague on both your houses"!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Feb 25, 1:29 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message .com, Rob
Hamadi writes

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.

Thanks. It seems to me from what you've explained that it's just* a
matter of learning the "grammar" of the classification system, then
expanding one's vocabulary. The fact that many of the words are Latin
is, to some extent, a red herring.

* I say "just", I'm sure that, at the very least, it's an awfully big
just.
--
Rob

Rob Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 1:29 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message .com, Rob
Hamadi writes

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.

Thanks. It seems to me from what you've explained that it's just* a
matter of learning the "grammar" of the classification system, then
expanding one's vocabulary. The fact that many of the words are Latin
is, to some extent, a red herring.

Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera.
It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so
Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such
as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams)

Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer
family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs
- mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus
Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground
cover in gardens.

The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables
sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the
plant in question. It's encouraged me to look closer at plants - for
example finding that Cyclamen is in the primrose family and seeing that
there is a real similarity in their flower structure. Conversely, it's
made plant identification so much easier. With wild plants it's
relatively easy to look at a plant and know immediately which family it
belongs to. A bit more difficult with garden plants, as we grow the odd
representative of a great many families which aren't necessarily
represented among the wild UK plants, but it's still a whole lot easier
than leafing through an encyclopaedia of garden plants looking at all
the white flowers ...


--
Kay