hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.

  • Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
  • From: Betsy Feuerstein <ecuador@midsouth.rr.com>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:25:55 -0500 (CDT)

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.


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 <denis@skg.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
> 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 <boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk>
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
> > > 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
> >

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index