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
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.

  • Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
  • From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <hetter@worldonline.nl>
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:32:40 -0500 (CDT)

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).


----- Original Message -----
From: Betsy Feuerstein <ecuador@midsouth.rr.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
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
> that is to be accepted. That does not mean that the rest of the world has
> 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,
> of botanists expecting the big world of the general population coming to
> them. In the practical sense, the odds of pothos becoming Epipremnum, or
> becoming Zantedeschia, etc., are minuscule. If you desire to continue to
> 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
> to something else leaving even greater confusion to the masses. Just
> botanics are not necessarily meant for the masses. They certainly serve
> purpose in an effort to create clarity from confusion, but even in
> 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
> best we can in such duality rather than trying to force a 'right' way to
> 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
> ladder, but just perhaps, we are willing to stand up for what we find
> and useful to us. You may prefer otherwise, but that does not make you
> and us 'wrong.' It just means we disagree. Could we not just agree to
> 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
> > 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
> > (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
> > and the fools of the Dutch Plant Breeder's Right Bureau have accepted
> > 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
> > countries......(I suppose this is something you DIDN'T want to
> >
> > Now to writing a proper cultivar name. There is no way to escape from
> > a binomial. Thus the name of cultivar 'Aureum' and all cultivars of
> > Epipremnum must at LEAST be tagged Epipremnum 'cultivar name'. The
> > "name" is less relevant in correct use because by default a cultivar
> > 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
> > like Johannesteysmannia..............). There is allowance however for
> > 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
> > (annuus) 'Dark Medal'. But then we run into the problem, that the
> > name" for Epipremnum would seem to be Pothos, and that is hardly
> > 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
> > one either.
> >
> > I am sure this does not solve all of your problems, like the use of the
> > "pothos" as a sort of common name denoting all Epipremnums. But then
> > 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
> > 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
> > > the case of Epipremnum mooreense'Aureum'(or is it E. aureum 'Aureum').
> > > My problem is that as a Wholesale producer of tropical foliage plants
> > > 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
> > > an improved form of the golden called 'Hawaiian' which has thicker
> > > substance to the leaf and better color. Does it really matter whether
> > > 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
> > E.
> > > > mooreense against E. aureum, so that the cultivar name 'Aureum' may
> > on
> > > > keeping its well-known status. Howse zat for a practical solution?
> > > >
> > > > Another "solution" would be to have the species E. aurem AND a
> > > > '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
> > 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
> > of
> > > > E. aureum was problematic. It was eventually laid to rest by being
> > a
> > > > cv. of the widespread and highly polymorphic E. pinnatum. This is
> > 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
> > > > There is a plant, E. mooreense, describe from the Pacific that was
> > > > considered to be a distinct species. During a visit to Paris
> > late
> > > > in 1998 I came across the type specimen on E. mooreense (collected
> > 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.
> > is
> > > > the same species as E. aureum and is DIFFERENT from E. pinnatum on
> > > > characters I outline in my paper. The earliest name for the species
> > E.
> > > > aureum.
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > >

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index