taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy

From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.25 at 15:46:15(6877) All Wilbert's email concerning cultons and cultonomy has got me to thinking (well, something had to) that with the leaps in techniques and tools available to taxonomists that have been made in the past decade it might be time to review what we call ourselves, based on what we do. +More My primary interest is in elucidating species and genera in the family Araceae. Species, genera and familes are taxa. I am studying the morphological differences and similarities between these taxa. I am a taxonomist. I have a student who uses the taxa I recognize to try to elucidate the processes that lead to species being evolutionarily related. This process is called phylogenetics and the resulting framework of related taxa is called a phylogeny. Is she, therefore, a phylogenist? Wilbert has an active interest in cultivated manifestations of taxa. These are called cultons. Is Wilbert thus a cultonomist? Answers in an email, please? ---------------------------- Peter Boyce Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home)

From: "D.J. Leedy" djleedy at netex.quik.com> on 2001.06.26 at 00:51:44(6881) Okay, I'll play. If you bred a taxonomist with a phylogenist would you get a phyllotaxonomist (one who studies the arrangement of leaves on a stem and in relation to one another)? Is this hybridizing, line breeding or inbreeding? David Leedy +More ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:46 AM Subject: taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy > All > > Wilbert's email concerning cultons and cultonomy has got me to > thinking that it might be time to review what we call ourselves, based on > what we do. >I am a taxonomist. > > I have a student who is called a a phylogenist. > Answers in an email, please? > > ---------------------------- > Peter Boyce > Herbarium > Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > Richmond, Surrey > TW9 3AE > Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 > fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 > email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) > boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home) > >

From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.26 at 15:28:26(6885) David Interesting point. Much depends on whether taxonomy, phylogeny, etc. are gene-driven and thus inheritable or whether they are leant life-skills and thus not inheritable. If the latter, you'd have absolutely no guarantee that the offspring of a hybridization programme would display the traits (or a mix of the traits) of the parents - unless of course one subscribes to the Lamarckian School in which case one might believe it possible. Okay, I'll play. +More If you bred a taxonomist with a phylogenist would you get a phyllotaxonomist (one who studies the arrangement of leaves on a stem and in relation to one another)? Is this hybridizing, line breeding or inbreeding? David Leedy ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:46 AM Subject: taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy > All > > Wilbert's email concerning cultons and cultonomy has got me to > thinking that it might be time to review what we call ourselves, based on > what we do. >I am a taxonomist. > > I have a student who is called a a phylogenist. > Answers in an email, please? > > ---------------------------- > Peter Boyce > Herbarium > Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > Richmond, Surrey > TW9 3AE > Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 > fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 > email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) > boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home) > > ---------------------------- Peter Boyce Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home)

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.26 at 21:01:31(6889) David, David, don't you know the difference between a phylogenist and a phyllogenist!!!??? Wilbert +More ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: dinsdag 26 juni 2001 2:51 Subject: Re: taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy > Okay, I'll play. > > If you bred a taxonomist with a phylogenist would you get a phyllotaxonomist > (one who studies the arrangement of leaves on a stem and in relation to one > another)? > > Is this hybridizing, line breeding or inbreeding? > > David Leedy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Boyce > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:46 AM > Subject: taxonomy, phylogeny and cultonomy > > > > All > > > > Wilbert's email concerning cultons and cultonomy has got me to > > thinking that it might be time to review what we call ourselves, based on > > what we do. > > >I am a taxonomist. > > > > I have a student who is called a a phylogenist. > > > Answers in an email, please? > > > > ---------------------------- > > Peter Boyce > > Herbarium > > Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > > Richmond, Surrey > > TW9 3AE > > Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 > > fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 > > email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) > > boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home) > > > > > >

From: Steve Marak samarak at arachne.uark.edu> on 2001.06.27 at 05:37:49(6894) On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Peter Boyce wrote: > My primary interest is in elucidating species and genera ... > I am a taxonomist. > > I have a student who uses the taxa I recognize ... this > process is called phylogenetics ... Is she, therefore, a phylogenist? > > Wilbert has an active interest in cultivated manifestations of taxa. > These are called cultons. Is Wilbert thus a cultonomist? And since my primary interest in and use of the nomenclatural system is to communicate clearly with others of similar interest, would that make me a communicant? I do often feel there is a religious flavor about it all. (If I had the time, I would devote myself to an uprising of gardeners, horticulturists, ecologists, etc. worldwide, to form a comradeship and overthrow the elitist aristocracy and return control of the naming system to the people! Well, maybe I'd just make it more rational.) Seriously, though, however silly the system under which you all must labor, and whatever name you choose for the rose, the breadth of knowledge of many of the experts on this list shows through, and continues to impress me on a regular basis. Steve +More -- Steve Marak -- samarak@arachne.uark.edu

From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2001.06.27 at 15:47:36(6901) Hi Steve I sympathize (to an extent) in that 'our' system can be tricky to master, but we do follow the rules (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) and are (mostly successfully) self-regulating. Sadly (as Wilbert and many more, I am sure, will attest), some of the MOST awful botanical naming blunders are those published by enthusiastic 'amateur systematist-hortculturists' . If anyone out there is into cacti, or orchids, they will no only too well just what a hash has been made of the naming by these folks. Pete +More ---------------------------- Peter Boyce Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207 fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278 email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work) boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home)

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 23:36:07(6915) In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 5:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes: << David, David, don't you know the difference between a phylogenist and a phyllogenist!!!??? +More Or a phyllanderer?

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.