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: Line breeding vs hybridization

  • Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
  • From: "Eduardo Goncalves" <edggon@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:56:16 -0500 (CDT)

Dear Jim,

   What I am trying to say (in my Tarzan's English) is that now we know lots 
of examples of spontaneous or semi-spontaneous hybrids being treated as good 
species by Linnaeus. Now we know that Linnaeus' Musa paradisiaca is one of 
the hybrids of Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. The problem is that we 
only know that it is an hybrid because we like bananas. However, there are 
many "respectable" good species that are, in fact, natural hybrids. We do 
not know about them just because they are poorly studied. So we call them 
like Linnean binomials. The only difference is that now we know about their 
history. If all of them were economically important, it is possible that we 
would only have a few Linnean names to apply.

                                Best wishes,


>From: Lewandjim@aol.com
>Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org
>To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
>Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:43:33 -0500 (CDT)
>In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>edggon@hotmail.com writes:
><< Dear Jim,
>      Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the
>  link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow.  >>
>Hey Eduardo,
>You misinterpret what I said. Linnaeus in his early taxonomic efforts 
>some domestic hybrids as "species" - the dog is NOT a species but a hybrid 
>a mishmash of wolf subspecies plus ??? (who knows what)! It should not be
>given a binomial epithet under international rules.
>Even today many long named plant "species" are being recognized as
>"non-species" of domestic or perhaps even naturally-occurring hybrids. The
>best treatment of this subject that I know is given in Schmid's THE GENUS
>     Jim Langhammer

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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