The Name Game

From: "Jay Vannini" interbnk at terra.com.gt> on 2001.07.13 at 21:56:15(7036) Greetings, all! Wow - as Ron Iles notes, the debate over the flux in botanical nomenclature has been remarkably civil thus far, given the depth of the "line in the sand" that has been drawn by the parties. And, albeit mixing my metaphors - time to muddy the waters... I tend to side with those who argue for "proper" (given our state of knowledge at any given time) placement of a species, taxonomically speaking, even if it does irk the public. Knowing that the Brazilian "Laelia" aren't "Laelia" at all, but rather Sophronitis sure helps me to sleep better at night (Note to Lord Wilbert: Please don't have me kicked off the forum for using a taxonomically-challenged orchid group as an example here). Anyone who has had the good fortune to meet biologist colleagues who share an interest, yet not a language, knows that the Latin & Greek binomials really are the great unifiers. I, for one, would hate to have to learn all the world's endangered species' common names in the principal languages in order to enhance a "sign language & smile" conversation with a fellow natural resources conservation aficionado at a conference! In all fairness to the Philodendron 'Nice Legs' and Dieffenbachia 'Whoop-de-Doo' crowd, the horticultural trade has to deal with the lowest common denominator - I can't imagine that you can expect the average hausfrau in Denver or Leeds to keep abreast of Drs. Boyce & Hetterscheid's pronouncements when they go to buy something green for that empty space above the kitchen sink. You know, the one in the faux bay window overlooking the neighbor's Volvo. +More It is obvious to even the most casual observer that "new" species, greater knowledge, and new tools and techniques continually give us a much better feel for any given organism's genetic relationship to others within the (OK, imperfect) Linnaean framework. Gross external morphology alone is sometimes not the best way to identify things and those giddy guys & gals in white lab coats are ever searching for new ways to skin the cat. The end result may turn conventional wisdom on its head and, admittedly, rub some people the wrong way, but that's Life. Joking aside, I don't believe that any bona fide researcher ever "splits", "sinks" or "lumps" species in an arbitrary or frivolous manner, however it may seem to outsiders. Anyone who has ever taken a close look at little-known species complexes in the tropics, particularly those that involve undescribed taxa, knows the challenge of trying to fit the pieces together properly and (oops!) the risks of assembling them in what ultimately is shown to be the wrong way. Personally, as a layperson, I find all this fascinating, even though I share the frustration of those who "blink" and find that their favorite beast or blossom has somehow changed genera on them. Units of measure, Betsy? I think that everyone in the opposing camps looks at the metric vs standard debate in the context of a GREAT quote from Anatole France regarding foolish things. As for "Golden Pothos" - nothing here that a judicious shot o' glyphosphate won't solve... Peace - Jay

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