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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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: Perfect Organisms

  • To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
  • Subject: Re: Perfect Organisms
  • From: Neil Carroll <zzamia@hargray.com>
  • Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:23:46 -0500 (CDT)

> And with that question you reveal what few people realize - a species is
not
> a real entity but a STANDARD based upon the formal types designated at the
> time the name was published. It can get complicated because exceptions can
> occur (e.g., if the original types become "lost" over time) but a species
is
> ONLY the holotype and the paratypes.



>From that time forward, specimens are
> compared to those types and an arbitrary decision is made as to which
named
> species, if any, an "unknown" belongs to. Variations are legion so "best
> guesses" are all that is possible!
>
>     Jim Langhammer


Where I see where you are going with this I do not beleive that "arbitrary"
and "best guess" are how taxonomists work.  Many variations do occur within
a species concept BUT let us not get to liberal with the species concept
over vegatative variations or color variations. What seperates ( in the
minds of human scientists) species is sex parts......flower structure, spore
structure, or cone structure. All other characters are only useful in a
limited, circumstantial way.

For example Phyllostachys nigra (Black Bamboo) was described from a specimen
that only happened to have black culmns. Later (after a rare flowering
event) it was discovered that the Type specimen (that clone which was used
to describe the species) was actually a black culmned varient. The majority
of the individuals of this species are green culmned like most bamboo. The
point being that any time you look at vegetative characters instead of
sexual characters you tread on thin ice. The sexual structures are very
consistant (realitivly) compared to the vegatative structures of any given
species. This consistancy is not "arbitrary" or a best guess.

Actually, now that I think of it.....some taxonomists are arbitrary and
guessers..........of course none of these are aroid taxonomists.

Neil







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