At 04:47 PM 2/23/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Neil wrote in response to Sue:
>>>Apomixis is NOT any form of asexual reproduction. Apomixis is asexual
>>>reproduction involving flower parts. Seeds without sex.
>>other forms of asexual reproduction which are not apomixis are, =
>>leaf propagation, tissue culture, offsets, bulbils etc.
>Very true. Also, relying upon literal translations from either the
>Greek or Latin is as unreliable as you can get, because these are
>invariably considerably distanced from the reality and are only
>descriptions in the broadest possible sense.
That's quite a statement!! If relying on literal translations from the
Greek or Latin are as unreliable as you can get, then why bother on trying
to use discriptive language at all to describe organisms? I agree only that
sometimes these words are far from reality. In quite a few other cases the
scientific name of a plant or animal can be very discriptive and at times,
the name is all you need to seperate one species from another. Of course
literal translations can be a slippery slope, they are also far from being
"invariably considerably distanced from reality".
When giving a new name to a plant or animal a few choices are available to
the taxonimist. The subject can be named after a location, it can honor a
person, or the name can reflect a characteristic of the subject.
While these names with their translations cannot be a totally reliable
proposition, they are more useful than being "as unreliable as you can get".