Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle
- Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle
- From: StellrJ@aol.com
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:17:28 -0500 (CDT)
In a message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:16:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Eduardo Goncalves" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
<< And what should be considered "majority"? I donīt think Chinese people
call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything
As an example of how, even in other languages, common names are not 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)?