This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: [SANS] Answer to Jim Waddick

>Buy the way, Grigsby's suggestion on his article that a plant cannot be
>described unless it is known where it was collected is not correct.
>A plant may be described as a cultivar or as a species even if there is no
>field collection data available.
>        3)       Wouldn't a registration authority be a good idea? Isn't
>there some sort of  registrar for cacti and succulents (including
>Sansevieria) that covers all those cultivar names?
>
>A registration authority will be an excellent idea.
>------------
>        4)       Glad to hear about S. hallii (italics). I missed this
>somewhere. I supposed I can still use "Baseball Bat," but now as a common
>name for S. hallii.
>
>I believe so, one can call a plant whatever one wants.
>------------
>        I do hope this doesn't sound too picky (along with LoWilla), but
>this seems like the place to clarify all these bits of trivia.
>
Jim! (I feel like Captain Kirk addressing you so urgently!)...it isn't
trivia! even for the 23 of us who rabidly collect, official names of
"standing and real meaning" are needed so we all know about what plant we
are speaking, being a worldwide if small body of enthusiasts!

It is not necessary for field data, in order to name something. the Bamboo
Bambusa ventricosa (still a monocot and therefore a distant cousin of the
Sansevieria!)...has to date ever been found wild-grown. it was purchased in
a Chinese market place By mcClure. Hoya pachyclada was bought in an asiatic
market place in the  by a japanese plant collector and ID's  by Ted green
for years.  I grew it slowly and sent a wee cutting to Ted Green after many
years,who now has a big shrub, (in no time flat!) in hawaii, damn his eyes
for his climate! glad glad glad I am not a taxonomost.

hermine
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index