In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...

Taxonomic changes aren't made just for fun, you know! The point of
taxonomy is to try to encapsulate the evolutionary process, and as our
knowledge of what is most closely related to what increases, the
nomenclature changes to reflect that.

The taxonomists and the geneticists I knew used to be at loggerheads for a
fair fraction of the time.

They're both trying to come to the same result. But they're both trying
to discover a historical process on the basis of a snap shot now, so
it's not surprising that they don't necessarily come to the same
conclusion.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

The taxonomists and the geneticists I knew used to be at loggerheads for a
fair fraction of the time.

Hmmm. Use a specific name at a convention of mycologists and cause
pandemonium innit.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk excange d.p. with p to reply.

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

The taxonomists and the geneticists I knew used to be at loggerheads for
a
fair fraction of the time.

Hmmm. Use a specific name at a convention of mycologists and cause
pandemonium innit.

Yes. That patch is even worse than the rest of the biology world. The even
argue as to whether or not to call fungi plants.

[Franz Heymann]

I hate to intrude on this very interesting and intellectual question but I would be most grateful if someone could positivel;y identify tghe plant I was enquiring about plkease

In article 02645a5f98f62a2fb3832c84fa8ff001@TeraNews, John John.rw8a3
@gardenbanter.co.uk writes
I hate to intrude on this very interesting and intellectual question but
I would be most grateful if someone could positivel;y identify tghe
plant I was enquiring about plkease
--
Do try to keep up ;-)
Your best bet so far is the thing beginning with R that I'd not heard of
- have you tried looking that up on Google and seeing whether it seems
to match?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Thanks Kay

I've been right through all the contributions and can't find anything begining with 'R'. However its very hot here in Lovely Lincolnshire and my eyesight being very poor I may have missed something. So, Kay, I would be grateful if you would send me the details and I will gladly do a Google search as I have with the other suggestions

Once again many thank

In article 6b75a0653733de73c22ebd50c04749fd@TeraNews, John John.rwh2q
@gardenbanter.co.uk writes
Thanks Kay

I've been right through all the contributions and can't find anything
begining with 'R'. However its very hot here in Lovely Lincolnshire
and my eyesight being very poor I may have missed something. So, Kay,
I would be grateful if you would send me the details and I will gladly
do a Google search as I have with the other suggestions

Once again many thank

From David Hill:

"From all I can find it seems as if it is some form of Iochroma
http://www.mediterraneangardensociet.../Iochroma.html"

I knew it had an 'R' in it somewhere!

I'm not sure whetehr david had seen your revision of the flower size, so
you'd need to check the flower size on this.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Thank you for your apology Kay

I have, of course, examined the web site suggested by David and also carried oiut a Google search hoping to find an Iochroma which fits my plant.

Unortunately I am still without a specific name for this plant.

I agree with David that it is most probably an Iochroma but I would like a specific name. I really am surprised that no one has come up with this

Best wishes to you all from John Ketteringham MBE PhD of Lovely Lincoln in the UK.

In article 985fb768f98e14f50cfa75f488a3628c@TeraNews, John John.rwmmo
@gardenbanter.co.uk writes
Thank you for your apology Kay

I didn't think I'd given one! ;-)


I agree with David that it is most probably an Iochroma but I would
like a specific name. I really am surprised that no one has come up
with this

It's not that common a plant in the garden. I've never seen one, and I
think your lack of answers demonstrates that not many of us have.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"........
I agree with David that it is most probably an Iochroma but I would like a
specific name. I really am surprised that no one has come up with this
......."

"..It's not that common a plant in the garden. I've never seen one, and I
think your lack of answers demonstrates that not many of us have. ....."

It doesn't help that this plant has changed its name a couple of times and
is still being sold under them all.

You could try www://botanic.co.uk then e mail whatever contact they give
with pics,
Alternatively if you are an RHS member then you could E Mail all the info
and pics to Wisley for their ident.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

Hmmm. Use a specific name at a convention of mycologists and cause
pandemonium innit.

Yes. That patch is even worse than the rest of the biology world. The even
argue as to whether or not to call fungi plants.

I thought it was established that fungi inhabit a completely separate phylum.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk excange d.p. with p to reply.

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

Hmmm. Use a specific name at a convention of mycologists and cause
pandemonium innit.

Yes. That patch is even worse than the rest of the biology world. The
even
argue as to whether or not to call fungi plants.

I thought it was established that fungi inhabit a completely separate
phylum.

Then I am, as usual, behind the times.
Thanks for the information.
Is it still thought that the whole fungus is in fact one enormous single
cell?

[Franz Heymann]

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I thought it was established that fungi inhabit a completely separate
phylum.

Then I am, as usual, behind the times.
Thanks for the information.
Is it still thought that the whole fungus is in fact one enormous single
cell?

The whole mycelium and any fruit bodies attached are one (sometimes)
enormous clone.

Never was believed to be a single cell though. The whole clone may cover
acres and weigh a great deal - (allegedly) the world's heaviest living
organism is a clone of honey fungus in IIRC Canada.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk excange d.p. with p to reply.

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I thought it was established that fungi inhabit a completely separate
phylum.

Then I am, as usual, behind the times.
Thanks for the information.
Is it still thought that the whole fungus is in fact one enormous single
cell?

The whole mycelium and any fruit bodies attached are one (sometimes)
enormous clone.

Never was believed to be a single cell though. The whole clone may cover
acres and weigh a great deal - (allegedly) the world's heaviest living
organism is a clone of honey fungus in IIRC Canada.

How interesting. I wish I had not thrown away my book on edible and
inedible fungi. I did it when I realised that I simply did not have the
courage to pick and eat a fungus described in the book and "recognised" by
me. Except for Jew's ear and giant puff balls. It is impossible to mistake
them.

[Franz Heymann]



--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk excange d.p. with p to
reply.

Could I ask please, Rusty and Franz just what this discussion has with the subject heading.

I know I am asking a lot but if you could apply yourselves to answering my original question that would be rather nice.