From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.08 at 03:41:09(6977)
If 'perversion' was thought to throw bad light upon the thoughts of botanists,
it was said with no intent to do such. In this case, 'perversion' being the
individual soul or group, way of thinking.
Should you choose to continue your effort to manipulate the thought patterns of
the many, I wish you well. To me, it might seem that your efforts could be spent
with so much more reward to not only yourselves, but to those who truly are
interested in the clarification of the ever expanding information and ever
deleting live material. Efforts spent in doing much more than giving
information, offering it as a clearer way to deal with such material, are
efforts in forcing people to accept your way of thinking. If world wars,
hundreds of year old religious conflicts, bombing of embassies, and untold other
atrocities are not enough example to demonstrate that people believe what they
want for whatever purpose they want. There is nothing wrong with the botanical
clarification of material. It is perfect for those who use it in their lives,
but for those that do not, then common names have their place also.
As to botanists being 'appointed' to their jobs, I find that thought
interesting. It would seem to me that botanists chose their jobs, their tasks,
for whatever reason or reasons. Perhaps they liked the concept and found plants
interesting, or perhaps it was a way to earn a living, or perhaps they had a
mentor they chose to follow. Who knows? No matter what, it was a choice of the
individual to follow that path. Unless you see that you are God appointed, then
you alone have responsibility for your choices. A gun at your head is only the
individual choice of life over death. And as to being of God, I agree, but then,
so are the rest of us.
Betsy
| +More |
|
Wilbert Hetterscheid wrote:
> Although the word "perversion" is not something I would like to see used
> against my arguments I will comment shortly: botanists are in the long run
> "appointed" by the rest of the world to do a GOOD job and some botanists
> (taxonomists) are required to inventory life's diversity and develop a
> "language" with which we can communicate about the entities that make up
> "life". Taxonomists have decided to use the dead language of Latin because
> that doesn't change anymore as a result of the Romans being dead as well. I
> think that when botanists have done a good job and are also judged by that,
> they may as well ask the "employer" to listen to them and try to have faith
> in what they're doing. I think using "pothos" after 200 years for the wrong
> thing is not very smart because it DOES also generate confusion (see the
> legal area where the term pothos has several meanings). Thus "common names"
> sometimes have a negative effect on what has been thought out by botanists.
> Botanists are perfectly right to focus attention to such cases and try to
> improve the situation. That is something different than being perverted. How
> about the word "geranium" for Pelargonium? NOT very smart.
>
> I am not against common names (we also enter them in our cultivar database
> on www.plantscope.nl
> , where they can even be used as query arguments!) but I do not like the
> ones that cause confusion.
>
> BTW: if I may use this opprotunity: the database mentioned above does
> contain quite some information on Anthurium cultivars and Spathiphyllum and
> some more commercially succesfull aroid cultivars. It is not etirely
> up-to-date and next week there will be a final big data-conversion, but it
> may be fun to stroll a bit through it as "guest user", if you wish).
>
> Wilbert
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Betsy Feuerstein
> 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
