Re: FW: Hostaceae
- Subject: Re: FW: Hostaceae
- From: Louanna Simmons <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:34:59 -0600
Thank you for sharing the wealth of information you got from George
Schmid! It does seem that an "innocent" question,
addressed to one who really knows his or her subject, draws a response
that exceeds our expectations, and tells us even more than we realized we
needed to know. -- The information given to you has already
been printed out and slipped inside my copy of The Genus Hosta.
At 11:10 AM 1/29/02 , you wrote:
A couple of weeks ago I posted an "innocent" question regarding
botanical classification of the genus Hosta. There was very little
from the crowd so I then directed my question to the "Master"
and he was
kind enough to respond.
For those that are interested, Mr. Schmid's response is copied below
his permission. The bottom line is this - botanical
much time. For now it would be correct to say that Hostaceae is one
commonly accepted botanical families for the genus Hosta. Some
Mr. Schmid) would argue it is the preferred classification.
Rob in KC
P.S. Mr. Schmid's e-mail address is not listed in the latest AHS
Directory. However he recently created an e-mail address
hosta related correspondence.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfram George Schmid
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:42 PM
> To: Rob Mortko
> Dear Mr. Mortko,
> All things in botanical nomenclature
and taxonomy move at a snail's
> pace. Not only is the movement very slow but so is acceptance in
> literature. Names and placements are opinions which (more frequently
> not) change. The recent return to Linnean nomenclature from newer
> (which do not have priority) is but one example. Another is the
> of placements of Hosta specioids as cultivars and some European
> still use nomenclature that has been out-of-date for decades.
> the higher ranks, i.e., families and higher are just as opinionated.
> RHS Index of Garden Plants (Mark Griffiths) still uses Liliacea
> Funkiaceae and Hostaceae given as alternates. On the other hand, he
> tells us that H. tokudama is a species, which, of course, it is not.
> one has ever found it growing in the wild! Unfortunately, the
> write a lot of learned works on taxonomy tend not to accept
> coming from other parts of the world. In his (Mark's) defense,
> monograph was published about the same time the Index was so could
> considered as a reference. The Liliaceae placement goes way back and
> considered by the following (and other) classifications: Cronquist,
> 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants.
> University Press, New York; pp. 1121-1122. Cronquist, A., 1988.
> Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. The New York
> Garden, New York; 2nd Ed.; Dahlgren, R. M. T., Clifford, H. T., and
> P. F., 1985. The Families of Monocotyledons. Structure, evolution
> taxonomy; Springer Verlag, Berlin. Pp. 187-188. As you can see
> Mathew's classification followed the publication of these major
> classification of the major works may be hard to accept by some and
> is why Matthew came up with the most recent placement in 1988.
> example, Dahlgren et al., (1985) have taxonomically separated
> daylilies and hostas by placing Hemerocallis into the monotypic
> Hemerocallidaceae and the genus Hosta along with Hesperocallis A.
> Leucocrinum Nutt. ex A. Gray in the Funkiaceae in the order
> It is important to note Dahlgren emphasized that the inclusion
> Hesperocallis and Leucocrinum, both endemic to western North
> the Funkiaceae, which also contain the eastern Asia genus Hosta does
> represent a truly satisfactory phylogenetic relationship. I find it
> to accept such placements because I grow both hostas and
> According to Mathew, Leucocrinum has recently been placed in
> Anthericaceae. The taxonomically difficult, monotypic Hesperocallis
> been connected with Hyacinthaceae and a new arrangement of the
> monocotyledon families at Kew Herbarium (as reported by Mathew)
> the removal of the latter from Funkiaceae. This left only Hosta in
> Funkiaceae. Mathew further clarified Dahlgren's fragmentation of the
> family of Liliaceae into smaller, homogeneous families as it relates
> Hosta. Mathew pointed out that Funkiaceae P. Horaninow was based on
> earlier name Funkia Sprengel (1817) which is a later homonym of
> Willdenow (1808). As such, according to the rules, it cannot pass
> on to the family so is invald. Mathew suggested that the name Hosta
> nomen conservandum) would indeed be eminently suitable as a family
> for the genus Hosta as Hostaceae and he provided a Latin diagnosis
> validate this name so the latest systematic position of the genus
> in the monotypic family Hostaceae which (incidentally)
> Hylander's tribal name Hosteae. More in my book on pages
> What all of this mumbo-jumbo means is
that Hostaceae is ONE of the
> accepted classifications in the latest literature and when one
> the validity of other placements as well as the arguments for and
> it, this placement has been accepted by most author writing on
> specifically and is listed in Index Hortensis. I prefer Hostaceae.
> those who would like Liliaceae, that is alright too, but Many and I
> this family is too broadly configured. The higher rank placements
> always be a point of discussion particularly now that we have DNA
> other modern methods to establish relationships.
> I hope this helps and convinces you to
stick with Hostaceae.
> W. George Schmid - Hosta Hill
To sign-off this list, send email to email@example.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN