Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.07.11 at 19:30:14(7020) -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:21 AM Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle In a message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:16:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, +More "Eduardo Goncalves" writes: << And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything soon! >> Good point Jason---and we have the Jamaican 'co co yams'!---NEW co co yam (with MANY species/vars. for the genus Xanthosoma), and 'OLD co co yams' with as many for the genus Colocasia, with the TRUE yams, genus Dioscoria creeping in from time to time! Let`s just be thankful for the scientific, binomial naming process! With that I KNOW what I eat!!! Julius ><> always taxonomically precise, Zheng and Lu (2000) use the common term "Taro," with various descriptors, for three different (though related) genera. Colocasia esculenta, they designate with characters meaning "Water Taro;" Alocasia macrorhiza, I am a little uncertain of the translation, but it is something like "Grandmother Taro;" Schismatoglottis calyptrata, they call "Village Taro;" and S. kotoensis they call "Orchid-Island Taro." So, just how DID the term "Pothos" come to be applied to Epipremnum mooreii (which I knew as Scindapsus)? Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large><><

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