In article , Kay Easton
writes
The Cruciferae family, particularly the
brassicaceae are long overdue for revision and re-classification IMHO.

What particular aspects worry you?

Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards' and others about correct naming of broccoli/calabrese. New
gardeners are often caught out by rooted plants being brassicas and
Oriental mustards are becoming a minefield of their own.

Normally recreational gardeners do not concern themselves over much
about correct botanical naming. When vegetables are being grown in a
rotational system though, plant families, especially brassicas can be
very important in maintaining soil and plant health.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
The Cruciferae family, particularly the
brassicaceae are long overdue for revision and re-classification IMHO.

What particular aspects worry you?

Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards'

But wasn't that more about what plants popular names applied to? - a
well known source of confusion, and nothing to do with taxonomy as such

and others about correct naming of broccoli/calabrese. New
gardeners are often caught out by rooted plants being brassicas and
Oriental mustards are becoming a minefield of their own.

Are you saying that there are plants within the brassicas which should
not be? Or conversely, that plants not at present considered to be
brassicas which you believe to be brassicas? Or are you making a plea
for common names to be more nearly aligned with botanical
classification?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In article , Kay Easton
writes
Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards'

But wasn't that more about what plants popular names applied to? - a
well known source of confusion, and nothing to do with taxonomy as such
Do you have the Latin name for collards?

Are you saying that there are plants within the brassicas which should
not be? Or conversely, that plants not at present considered to be
brassicas which you believe to be brassicas? Or are you making a plea
for common names to be more nearly aligned with botanical
classification?
Any new classification should hopefully clarify all of those points.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards'

But wasn't that more about what plants popular names applied to? - a
well known source of confusion, and nothing to do with taxonomy as such
Do you have the Latin name for collards?

Brassica oleracea (var) acephala

Are you saying that there are plants within the brassicas which should
not be? Or conversely, that plants not at present considered to be
brassicas which you believe to be brassicas? Or are you making a plea
for common names to be more nearly aligned with botanical
classification?
Any new classification should hopefully clarify all of those points.

The bounds of genera in Brassicaceae is considered a problem, Brassica
amongst them, but I'm not aware of any doubts about the placement of B.
oleracea, B. napus and their amphiploid hybrid B. rapa.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
Quite a few. You might remember more than one discussion in urg about
'collards'

But wasn't that more about what plants popular names applied to? - a
well known source of confusion, and nothing to do with taxonomy as such
Do you have the Latin name for collards?

I don't know which plant you mean by collards, any more than I know
which plant you would mean by 'gillyflower'. No amount of looking at DNA
and revisiting current classification is going to clear up the common
names of plants, which are applied without great regard to their
underlying relationships - lesser and greater celandine, for example!

Are you saying that there are plants within the brassicas which should
not be? Or conversely, that plants not at present considered to be
brassicas which you believe to be brassicas? Or are you making a plea
for common names to be more nearly aligned with botanical
classification?
Any new classification should hopefully clarify all of those points.

I think it should throw more light on how accurately existing
classifications mirror evolutionary history, but I can't see that it can
help in any way with common names.

But what I was asking you is are you aware of any greater taxonomic
confusion among the brassicas than among other plants (other, of course,
than the problem of common names which have never attempted to mirror
taxonomy and which may be used by different parts of the country to
refer to different plants)


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
Yes, but Asteraceae/Compositae seems to be one of the more robust bits
of the classification (excepting the past dismemberment of
Chyrsanthemum). For an overview see

URL:http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/...ers/asteralesw
eb.htm#Asteraceae

?? Do you mean the section which states:

ASTERACEAE Martynov*//COMPOSITAE Giseke Back to Asterales

Herbs to trees or vines; sesquiterpene lactones, terpenoid essential
oils, various alkaloids, polyacetylenes [cyclic, aromatic, with vinyl
end groups] +, tanniniferous, iridoids 0; cork superficial (deep
seated); (cortical or medullary vascular bundles +); cambium storied or
not; (vessel elements with scalariform or reticulate perforations);
nodes also 5:5; leaves also opposite, often conduplicate or revolute,
margins various; inflorescence capitulate, involucrate, ebracteate;
flowers poly- or variously monosymmetric, K reduced, C split-
monosymmetric, bilabiate, or tubular (deeply lobed), anthers connate
(free), with apical and basal [calcarate] appendages, caudate, tapetum
amoeboid, ovule basal, embryo sac with persistent multinucleate
antipodal cells; (K deciduous); (testa not vascularized), exotestal
cells thickened, palisade or flattened, or undistinguished; endosperm
(nuclear), scanty to 0; protein bodies in nuclei.

For lay gardeners, a little clarification would be helpful.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Kay Easton
writes
But what I was asking you is are you aware of any greater taxonomic
confusion among the brassicas than among other plants (other, of course,
than the problem of common names which have never attempted to mirror
taxonomy and which may be used by different parts of the country to
refer to different plants)

They also vary from country to country. The point I have already made is
that whatever the common name of a plant may be, or for that matter
whatever its taxonomic name is, a gardener needs to know which plant
family it belongs to in order to carry out correct crop rotations.

A new system of classification could take the opportunity of making that
a lot more clear than it presently is. Brassicas are more relevant in
that respect because they collectively tend to take the highest
proportion of area in an average vegetable plot, and they have the
greatest number of varieties within their family compared to other
vegetables. They are also susceptible to club root if grown too often in
the same place or too intensively, and that horrible disease can take up
to nine years to eradicate.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:17:41 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Hussein M. contains these words:

I also suppose that the best time to
sow any seed in situ is that time when the plant seeded to produce the
seeds.

Well...no, it isn't, especially in areas which have cold or wet
winters. Autumn-sown open ground seeds usually have far lower
germination and poorer survival rates than the same seeds properly
stored, then planted in the same place in Spring. Seeds in open ground
do better when soil is warming up not cooling down, and when daylength
is lengthening not shortening.

Aha. Thanks for that Janet, all my hardy perennials seeds are indoors
... and sown just now. But it's a cold frame arrangements.

I'm sure I have made, or am about to make, a big boo boo somewhere
down the line.


Janet.

In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
But what I was asking you is are you aware of any greater taxonomic
confusion among the brassicas than among other plants (other, of course,
than the problem of common names which have never attempted to mirror
taxonomy and which may be used by different parts of the country to
refer to different plants)

They also vary from country to country. The point I have already made is
that whatever the common name of a plant may be, or for that matter
whatever its taxonomic name is, a gardener needs to know which plant
family it belongs to in order to carry out correct crop rotations.

But there are two points there - firstly the same common name may be
applied to plants of different families - like gillyflower, for example

Secondly, although in many cases closely related plants share similar
growth preferences this may not always be true, where, for example, they
have come to occupy different habitats, and secondly, similarity of
growth preference does not imply close relationship. So removal of plant
from a particular family would not mean that you had to alter its
position in crop rotations - unless, of course, generations of gardeners
had got it wrong!


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In article , Kay Easton
writes
But there are two points there - firstly the same common name may be
applied to plants of different families - like gillyflower, for example

Secondly, although in many cases closely related plants share similar
growth preferences this may not always be true, where, for example, they
have come to occupy different habitats, and secondly, similarity of
growth preference does not imply close relationship. So removal of plant
from a particular family would not mean that you had to alter its
position in crop rotations - unless, of course, generations of gardeners
had got it wrong!

Yes, these are good points which hopefully would be considered by those
undertaking the task of re-classification.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Alan Gould
writes
Secondly, although in many cases closely related plants share similar
growth preferences this may not always be true, where, for example, they
have come to occupy different habitats, and secondly, similarity of
growth preference does not imply close relationship. So removal of plant
from a particular family would not mean that you had to alter its
position in crop rotations - unless, of course, generations of gardeners
had got it wrong!

Yes, these are good points which hopefully would be considered by those
undertaking the task of re-classification.

Any formal reclassification that takes place in the light of DNA
evidence will be on the basis of genealogy, so your hope would appear to
be forlorn. And with the current state of the art DNA sequencing can
only shed light on genealogy, so your hope is doubly so.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:13:38 +0000, Hussein M.
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:17:41 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Hussein M. contains these words:

I also suppose that the best time to sow any seed in situ
is that time when the plant seeded to produce the seeds.

Well...no, it isn't, especially in areas which have cold or wet
winters. Autumn-sown open ground seeds usually have far lower
germination and poorer survival rates than the same seeds properly
stored, then planted in the same place in Spring. Seeds in open ground
do better when soil is warming up not cooling down, and when daylength
is lengthening not shortening.

Aha. Thanks for that Janet, all my hardy perennials seeds are indoors
.. and sown just now. But it's a cold frame arrangements.

I'm sure I have made, or am about to make, a big boo boo somewhere
down the line.

You'll learn after a while. Rome wasn't built in a day and
developing that intuitive sense of what works and what doesn't
(aka a green thumb), as regards seed sowing or any other aspect
of avocational horticulture, takes time -- and any number of
humiliatingly abject failures.

Generally speaking, I find that seeds of composites (Asteraceae)
and labiates (Lamiaceae) do better if held back until normal
planting out time in the spring, or maybe a few weeks earlier.
They seem to require warmth for germination, and if sown now,
tend to simply rot away during the long, dark, damp, chilly
winter. [Note that this is not a Rule engraved on a stone tablet;
rather it is simply what I have experienced under my conditions
and preferred practices. YMMV etc.]

On the other hand, cyclamen should be sown as you can. If you
delay, their germination may be delayed a full year, as most
species tend to germinate at the same season as mature plants
leaf out.

On the whole, I prefer the approach of letting the seed germinate
when it will rather than *making* it germinate when I want it to.
This helps avoid the difficulty of trying to over-winter young
seedlings.

You'll also learn tricks like topdressing seed pots with fine
gravel, sprinkling fine seed on top of the top dressing and
drawing it down via capillary action by standing the pot up to
its neck in water, and so on.

A very skilled seed sower here swears by a drench of a good
fungicide such as captan. as making an enormous difference
between success and failure with many seeds.

As for your failures at sowing hardy perennials, dump the
failures out where any chance later germinations can be rescued.
There is one garden on the mountain slope that overlooks
Vancouver, BC, where for years the owners have dumped out
"failed" seed pots on the grassy verge of the street. The most
astonishing assortment of plants has come up as a result.

Just don't tell anyone what failed. Emphasize the successes.

For the record I have a germination success rate somewhere around
60-75% pot-wise; and often if *anything* comes up in a pot, I
o,ften get about 80% germination, seedwise. Of course, there are
wide variations from year to year and pot to pot.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

In article , Rodger Whitlock
writes


On the other hand, cyclamen should be sown as you can. If you
delay, their germination may be delayed a full year, as most
species tend to germinate at the same season as mature plants
leaf out.

Primroses, cowslips and other primulas ditto, as you might expect.

On the whole, I prefer the approach of letting the seed germinate
when it will rather than *making* it germinate when I want it to.
This helps avoid the difficulty of trying to over-winter young
seedlings.

It's also less bother and leaves your fridge empty for olives, feta
cheese and other things.


For the record I have a germination success rate somewhere around
60-75% pot-wise; and often if *anything* comes up in a pot, I
o,ften get about 80% germination, seedwise. Of course, there are
wide variations from year to year and pot to pot.

Same here - either everything in the pot comes up or nothing does.

And this also applies in the second year - stick the failed pot under
the staging, with just a plastic bag over it so you don't have to water
it, forget it completely, and next spring, after a good cold spell, the
seedlings may have come up like mustard and cress. Or they may not.



--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:52:55 GMT,
(Rodger Whitlock) wrote:

You'll learn after a while. Rome wasn't built in a day and
developing that intuitive sense of what works and what doesn't
(aka a green thumb), as regards seed sowing or any other aspect
of avocational horticulture, takes time -- and any number of
humiliatingly abject failures.

and more on sprouting seeds ...

Thanks Roger for your encouragement - no really .....

I wasn't expecting it all to be a cake walk and you actually (and
kindly) provided one or two tips for me.

Regards

Hussein

On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 15:19:52 +0000, Hussein M.
wrote:

Thanks Roger for your encouragement - no really .....

That's the best response of all.

Since you are interested in hardy perennials, I suggest you
investigate the seedlists of the RHS, the Hardy Plant Society,
the Alpine Garden Society, and the Scottish Rock Garden Club.
There's probably someone in your neighbourhood with a copy of
each of these.

[You must join the relevant society to get seeds from them, btw.]

The HPS list is (or was when I was a member, ca. 1982-1994)
exceptionally rich in herbaceous perennials, including a wide
range of quite uncommon plants, and the seed packets were very
generously filled.

You might think the suggestion that you look into the AGS and
SRGC list misguided, but these lists contain all sorts of
interesting surprises in the way of perennials, by no means all
"tiny gems from the rocky heights".


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada