----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: vrijdag 6 juli 2001 17:25
Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
> I hate to be a pain but who said there was ever anything 'wrong' with
doing the
> practical over what you consider the 'right way, other than you and other
> botanists who feel that your way is the only correct way. Perhaps in
botanics,
> that is to be accepted. That does not mean that the rest of the world has
to
> live in your world. Just perhaps, an element of practicality would do
botanics a
> great step forward into meeting the big world of the general population,
instead
> of botanists expecting the big world of the general population coming to
meet
> them. In the practical sense, the odds of pothos becoming Epipremnum, or
calla
> becoming Zantedeschia, etc., are minuscule. If you desire to continue to
beat
> your heads against a non moving stone wall, you will get nowhere, just has
> happened in the past. Pothos is pothos, and calla is calla and by all
odds, will
> continue to be known just as is for some time to come, like for
generations to
> come. To see the reverse and stability to such common names, botanists are
> forever changing commonly accepted botanically correct names, at least in
form,
> to something else leaving even greater confusion to the masses. Just
perhaps,
> botanics are not necessarily meant for the masses. They certainly serve
their
> purpose in an effort to create clarity from confusion, but even in
botanics
> there is great confusion, so just for now, maybe it might be wise to just
> consider common names as such and botanical names as such and move forward
the
> best we can in such duality rather than trying to force a 'right' way to
call
> some plant. We tried that with metric and so far, it has abysmally failed
in the
> United States. Now some of you may consider us as the lower end of the
human
> ladder, but just perhaps, we are willing to stand up for what we find
practical
> and useful to us. You may prefer otherwise, but that does not make you
'right'
> and us 'wrong.' It just means we disagree. Could we not just agree to
disagree?
> New concept here for those so stuck in their perversion of a 'right' and a
> 'wrong' way, CHOICE.
>
> Betsy
>
> Wilbert Hetterscheid wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > So here we are on the borderline between doing it right and doing it the
> > practical way. First off, I would agree with anyone who would oppose the
use
> > of "pothos" for this material. Here I am a hardliner. I think it is HIGH
> > time that "nursery"-names of more than 2 centuries old, should be
eradicated
> > (what about Arum cornutum for Typh. venosum etc.). The term Golden
Pothos is
> > even worse, since there is a cultivar of E. moorense named 'Golden
Pothos'
> > and the fools of the Dutch Plant Breeder's Right Bureau have accepted
that
> > name and registered it legally. It is an all-yellow form selected from
> > 'Aureum', but the name 'Golden Pothos' thus has gotten a new status in
UPOV
> > countries......(I suppose this is something you DIDN'T want to
know.......).
> >
> > Now to writing a proper cultivar name. There is no way to escape from
using
> > a binomial. Thus the name of cultivar 'Aureum' and all cultivars of
> > Epipremnum must at LEAST be tagged Epipremnum 'cultivar name'. The
species
> > "name" is less relevant in correct use because by default a cultivar
name
> > may not exist twice in one and the same genus, irrespective under what
> > species of that genus the names may have been established. I suppose a
> > binomial on a tag would be surmountable, right (unless you cultivate
palms
> > like Johannesteysmannia..............). There is allowance however for
using
> > the common name instead of the genus name or crop name and then add the
> > cultivar. Thus one might say Sunflower 'Dark Medal' instead of
Helianthus
> > (annuus) 'Dark Medal'. But then we run into the problem, that the
"common
> > name" for Epipremnum would seem to be Pothos, and that is hardly
acceptable.
> > I must confess though that by now the common name Calla(-lily) for
> > Zantedeschia has been firmly established as well and that is not a
pretty
> > one either.
> >
> > I am sure this does not solve all of your problems, like the use of the
term
> > "pothos" as a sort of common name denoting all Epipremnums. But then
this:
> > what do you call Epipremnum-like plants like true Rhaphidophora and
like? I
> > guess you may have to start teaching your customers some basic use of
> > correct names, step by step..... Look e.g. at a catalogue like that of
our
> > esteemed Aroid-l member Tony Avent. THERE's a catalogue you may want to
> > learn from.
> >
> > Cheerio,
> > Wilbert
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Denis
> > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
> > Sent: dinsdag 3 juli 2001 7:50
> > Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
> >
> > > Wilbert:
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree with the need for exact taxanomic nomenclature
in
> > > the case of Epipremnum mooreense'Aureum'(or is it E. aureum 'Aureum').
> > > My problem is that as a Wholesale producer of tropical foliage plants
I
> > > can not always fit the whole correct name into the slot provided in my
> > > computerized inventory software and in the the foliage business Aureum
> > > isn't the whole name. 99% of the people in my business know Epipremnum
> > > aureum by the goofy common name of "Golden Pothos" and there are three
> > > recognized cultivars, 'Golden" with golden yellow variation on a green
> > > leaf, 'Marble Queen' with white variegation on dark green leaf and
> > > 'Jade' with just a dark green leaf. Now there is a new cultivated
form,
> > > an improved form of the golden called 'Hawaiian' which has thicker
> > > substance to the leaf and better color. Does it really matter whether
I
> > > refer to it as Epipremnum aureum or Epipremnum mooreense 'Aureum' or
> > > just Marble Queen, Jade or Golden Pothos except when I am talking to a
> > > Taxonomist such as yourself, Peter or Simon who get all upset when I
> > > call it a "Pothos". As it is I have to post it on my price list as
> > > "Pothos" because my customers couldn't find it on my price list in
> > > alphabetical order as Epipremnum aureum. They would look in the
> > > greenhouse and ask why they could not find a price for it on the
> > > listing. So a practical solution for you, Wilbert the taxonomist, is
> > > different from practical solution for me the horticulturist.
> > >
> > > Denis at Silver Krome Gardens
> > >
> > > Wilbert Hetterscheid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And now some hardcore cultonomy to try and solve this problem:
> > > >
> > > > In order to maintain the well-known cultivarname Epipremnum 'Aureum'
> > > > (whether this belongs to E. pinnatum or not is actually not
essential in
> > the
> > > > nomenclature of cultivars!!!), we could urge Peter to conserve the
name
> > E.
> > > > mooreense against E. aureum, so that the cultivar name 'Aureum' may
keep
> > on
> > > > keeping its well-known status. Howse zat for a practical solution?
> > > >
> > > > Another "solution" would be to have the species E. aurem AND a
cultivar
> > > > 'Aureum' of that same species..... Somehow that doesn't sound ideal.
> > > >
> > > > Wilbert (sticking his nose in climbing aroids for the first
> > > > time........auch!!!!)
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Peter Boyce
> > > > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
> > > > Sent: woensdag 20 juni 2001 21:51
> > > > Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
> > > >
> > > > Laura
> > > >
> > > > Then it is still only a rumor as far as you know? I mean, if
aureum
> > is a
> > > > cultivar of E. pinnatum, then it's the same plant basically?
> > > >
> > > > Not quite that straightforward (is it ever!). For a long time the
status
> > of
> > > > E. aureum was problematic. It was eventually laid to rest by being
made
> > a
> > > > cv. of the widespread and highly polymorphic E. pinnatum. This is
the
> > stance
> > > > (with the caveats that you have now read) I took when I published my
> > account
> > > > of Epipremnum in West and Central Malesia a few years back. However,
> > since
> > > > then I have been working on Epipremnum in East Malesia and the
Pacific.
> > > > There is a plant, E. mooreense, describe from the Pacific that was
long
> > > > considered to be a distinct species. During a visit to Paris
Herbarium
> > late
> > > > in 1998 I came across the type specimen on E. mooreense (collected
from
> > a
> > > > remote island mountain, not in a cultivated place) and lo and
behold, it
> > is
> > > > identical with the thing we call cv. Aureum. In my opinion E.
mooreense
> > is
> > > > the same species as E. aureum and is DIFFERENT from E. pinnatum on
the
> > > > characters I outline in my paper. The earliest name for the species
is
> > E.
> > > > aureum.
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > >
>
>
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
