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

In message , K
writes
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.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 4/3/07 14:34, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , K
writes
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.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Very interesting but not easy for the beginner, IMO!

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

In message , Sacha
writes
On 4/3/07 14:34, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , K
writes
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.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Very interesting but not easy for the beginner, IMO!


It didn't think I was going into particularly abstruse territory, but
it's hard to remember back to the days when the boundaries of my
ignorance were smaller. (The more you learn the more you realise that
you don't know.)

But for a learning experience, what is wanted is not easy material, but
(sufficiently) challenging material. Readers can always ask for
clarification, if they're interested.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 4/3/07 16:06, in article , "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 4/3/07 14:34, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , K
writes
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.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Very interesting but not easy for the beginner, IMO!


It didn't think I was going into particularly abstruse territory, but
it's hard to remember back to the days when the boundaries of my
ignorance were smaller. (The more you learn the more you realise that
you don't know.)

But for a learning experience, what is wanted is not easy material, but
(sufficiently) challenging material. Readers can always ask for
clarification, if they're interested.

I thought that first reader did - sort of - ask for clarification. In the
beginning - sorry to sound Biblical - if you one can just get the actual
Latin name by which a plant is known that is quite enough, IMO. It enables
you to order a plant, discuss it with others in this country or other
countries and know what you've got if you want to look it up on e.g. Google
or the Plant Finder. The far distant lunar light years away from most
gardeners, botanical particulars are, I'm sure extremely interesting to
those of that turn of mind but they are absolutely not essential to the
average gardener who simply wants to ID a plant he's read about under its
common name in South Africa, Staffordshire or South Molton. ;-)
That said, I salute your knowledge but can never say that we have had even
ONE customer here ask such questions before buying e.g. Pulmonaria 'Blue
Ensign'! OTOH, we have had customers asking for Lungwort...... ;-)

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