Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle
- Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle
- From: "Julius Boos" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:30:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: StellrJ@aol.com <StellrJ@aol.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle
In a message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:16:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Eduardo Goncalves" <email@example.com> writes:
<< And what should be considered "majority"? I donīt think Chinese people
call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything
Good point Jason---and we have the Jamaican 'co co yams'!---NEW co co yam
(with MANY species/vars. for the genus Xanthosoma), and 'OLD co co yams'
with as many for the genus Colocasia, with the TRUE yams, genus Dioscoria
creeping in from time to time! Let`s just be thankful for the scientific,
binomial naming process! With that I KNOW what I eat!!!
><><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)?