Re: Pseudodracontium - RIP?
- Subject: Re: Pseudodracontium - RIP?
- From: "Marek Argent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:41:07 +0200
Dear Wilbert and everyone interested,
Yes, that's almost everything I wanted to know. Often the priority of the
first described taxon in a group collides with the current taxonomy, but
nothing will stop me before using the name Amorphophalleae (plus Thomsonieae
in brackets) in my website.
I know that its time will come and earlier or later the "codemasters" will
change it officially, just like in other groups of plants Caryophyllaceae
was renamed to Silenaceae, Aquifoliaceae to Ilicaceae, as it is worldwide
agreed that the higher taxa names are created from names of valid genera
(not species) or distinguishing features (as it was in the past -
Compositae, Labiatae, Monocotyledones etc).
I didn't think about such a combination when the first described genus
currently doesn't exist and the higher taxon name comes from it, anyway in
some publications I found the family name Opuntiaceae used for Cactaceae
(Cactus = currently a not existing genus) and this is identically as
Thomsonia published earlier than Amophophallus.
Well, even the science has become a part of art...
"Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?
Will it make it easier on you now?
You got someone to blame"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Discussion of aroids'" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Pseudodracontium - RIP?
> Hi Marek,
> An interesting suggestion: logic and botanical nomenclature in one system.
> wish you could arrange this and save us from every 5 years changing the
> nomenclature code and spending expensive hours of scientists in debating
> hundreds of amendmends at expensive congresses as a hobby. It is becoming
> (pseudo-)science in itself to change the code and many, many, many
> things are in there and unworkable complex solutions for one or two
> nomenclatural occurrences in the plant kingdom (whatever that may be these
> days..........). The ICNCP is like a computer programma that must fit the
> needs of way too many people. Every programmer knows what that ledas
> to....... Democracy at its worst.
> Having moped enough: believe me, the rules force us to use
> Thomsonieae............. Although the genus name Thomsonia is now part of
> Amorphophallus, the name itself was legitimately published and the the
> derived name Thomsonieae the oldest and correct one for the tribe. Whether
> Thomsonia itself is used or not is beside the point (I know, sounds very
> I will refrain from dividing up Amorphophallus in all possible ranks
> its internal phylogenetic structure is not stable enough (I will
> 5 major robust clades and a few within them but will not name them yet).
> Following my work, Hamburg student Cyrille Claudel will publish a more
> robust phylogeny and maybe then we can suggest more stable infrageneric
> ranks. Pseudodracontium is very tightly bound to the species around Am.
> longituberosus (incl. coudercii, albispathus and tenuispadix) and it may
> well be more useful to give a name to the combination Pseudodracontium +
> Am. longituberosus alliance. I am also trying to avoid creating a plethora
> of new names at infrageneric levels. That's just name-pushing. The trouble
> with the present Linnean-based system of naming ranks is that every name
> one level in the hierarchy automatically must lead to names at the same
> ranks for other groups at the same hierarchical level in the
> That is a very unfortunate byproduct of the ICNCP rules and I think it is
> high time we overtrhow it and look for a smarter solution (the Phylocode
> initiative maybe.................?).
> O.k., maybe now you know more than you hoped for........
> Lord P(hylocode apprentice-oid).
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> [mailto:email@example.com] Namens Marek Argent
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 4 mei 2010 19:53
>> Aan: Discussion of aroids
>> Onderwerp: Re: [Aroid-l] Pseudodracontium - RIP?
>> Dear Wilbert,
>> I know that taxonomic units are now conventional, everything
>> is based on clades, but from the classic point of view what
>> will be the position or Pseudodracontium within the
>> Amorphophallus, a subgenus or a section?
>> The second thing: the genus Amorphophallus is placed in the
>> tribe Thomsonieae, named from a non-existing genus Thomsonia
>> which is currently a part of Amorphophallus.
>> Wouldn't it be better to rename the tribe to Amorphophalleae?
>> I have used the name Amorphophalleae since I started my
>> www.araceum.prv.pl and it seems to be logical.
>> Marek Argent
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: "'Discussion of aroids'" <email@example.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Pseudodracontium - RIP?
>> > Not yet, rest assured and hope I will die before I get it
>> > published.............or else change all labels.
>> > Lord P.
>> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> >> Van: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >> [mailto:email@example.com] Namens StroWi@t-online.de
>> >> Verzonden: maandag 3 mei 2010 7:17
>> >> Aan: aroid-L
>> >> Onderwerp: [Aroid-l] Pseudodracontium - RIP?
>> >> Aroiders,
>> >> has it happened?
>> >> The almighty Lord P.(lanttaxonomist) struck again????
>> >> "Molecular work on Amorphophallus and Pseudodracontium (Grob
>> >> et al., 2002, 2004) however also indicates the true position
>> >> of Pseudodracontium as part of Amorphophallus. When this
>> >> taxonomic decision has been made, we will have to sink these
>> >> IAS webpages as well..................and we will organise a
>> >> fitting "in memoriam".
>> >> Quoted from:
>> >> http://www.aroid.org/genera/generapage.php?genus=pseudodracontium
>> >> Just curious....
>> >> Bernhard.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Aroid-L mailing list
>> > Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
>> > http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
>> Nie znaleziono virusa w tej wiadomosci przychodzacej.
>> Sprawdzone przez AVG - www.avg.com
>> Wersja: 8.5.437 / Baza danych wirusow: 271.1.1/2853 - Data
>> wydania: 05/04/10
>> Aroid-L mailing list
> Aroid-L mailing list
Nie znaleziono virusa w tej wiadomosci przychodzacej.
Sprawdzone przez AVG - www.avg.com
Wersja: 8.5.437 / Baza danych wirusow: 271.1.1/2860 - Data wydania: 05/07/10
Aroid-L mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |