Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: Stephenb on December 31, 2010, 11:04:58 AM
-
The Plant List is complete!
http://www.theplantlist.org (http://www.theplantlist.org)
http://www.kew.org/news/plant-list-complete.htm (http://www.kew.org/news/plant-list-complete.htm)
-
...... and with lots of surprises and head scratching for non-Botanists and Taxonomists reading it I suppose. I found that Lewisia are now in the family Montiaceae and not Portulacaceae as I have always known them ???
-
It is a totally stupid idea. There are no generally accepted names of plants. Botany is namely a science,
its results are therefore ephemeral, subjective and relative. The lists-producing clerks should do
anything useful, for example charity, and not interfere in a field reserved for scientists.
-
So, Great Moravian, are you saying that gardening and gardeners have no place in "Science"? Surely gardeners need to know what it is they are growing so that they can either take up , or ignore, as the case may be, what the Scientists are saying? I doubt that your title of "list producing clerks" is an adequate one for the probably very highly qualified people who will have worked on this project.
-
The principle of making lists of accepted names contradicts basic principles of scientific thinking.
So the project is absurd in its foundations.
Furthermore, I checked the information there for several genera. Terrible.
-
I really can't believe that two very august horticultural and scientific bodies would spend scarce resources in terms of time and human resource to conduct a project that "contradicts basic principles of scientific thinking" and "absurd in its foundations"
I don't doubt there will be sufficient room in the material published for argument and further discussion. I hope you will be putting your views forward to contribute to this.
-
Botany is namely a science, its results are therefore ephemeral, subjective and relative.
A curious view of science.
The principle of making lists of accepted names contradicts basic principles of scientific thinking.
So the project is absurd in its foundations.
Furthermore, I checked the information there for several genera. Terrible.
What are these "basic principles of scientific thinking"?
-
It is also to be noted that this is, in their own words, a "working list", using "working" with the following meaning, I would imagine:
working
• adjective
3. (of a theory, definition, or title) used as the basis for work or argument and likely to be developed or improved later: his working title for the book was Why People Are Poor.
(Online Oxford Dictionary of English)
-
I plan to keep well out of this discussion but will follow it with great interest as it develops.
-
It is a totally stupid idea. There are no generally accepted names of plants. Botany is namely a science,
its results are therefore ephemeral, subjective and relative. The lists-producing clerks should do
anything useful, for example charity, and not interfere in a field reserved for scientists.
I would be highly interested in why the staff of Kew Botanical Garden and Misouri Botanical Garden are clerks and not scientists. I woudl have assumed that they were mostly people with academic degrees in botany. Please educate me!
Also please educate me as to why there are no generally accepted names. I would have believed that this is something we have had since 1753.
In humble appreciation
Göte
PS
I recall that you have given valuable information of taxonomic nature in the past. Do you sincerely mean that your info was generally unacceptable??
-
I shall try to explain the problem to you.
There exists an obligatory basic document containing concepts an rules concerning plant names.
http://www.ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm
Accepted names are not concepts of the document above.
There exist two important and useful lists of plant names which I use extensively.
One is the index of published names gradually becoming a source of information
about validity and legitimity of names. It is maintained on a scientific basis.
http://www.ipni.org/
The other is Global Plant Checklist in which you can obtain information about names accepted=used by different authors.
No authoritative decision is contained in Global Plant Checklist and it is a valuable source of information of scientific nature.
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/IOPI/GPC/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Pulsatilla%20alpina%20subsp.%20alba&PTRefFk=
Lists of accepted names without reference to the person by which being accepted are non-scientific nonsense.
-
You continue to refer to science or "scientific" without giving us any idea as to what we are to understand by the term(s).
-
I plan to keep well out of this discussion but will follow it with great interest as it develops.
+1
Unexpected Great Moravians comment makes the discussion very interesting
-
Isn't the thing to bear in mind here that this plant list is just intended as a (fairly basic) tool for use in global plant conservation efforts. It doesn't seem to be intended to be a major piece of ground-breaking scientific research, more a simple collation of available information in a very easily understood and accessible (even "populist") form that can be used by people in many walks of life who are not necessarily botanical or horticultural experts. It is by its very nature a blunt tool and far from perfect (whatever that might mean). The question I'd ask is: as a basic tool will it do the job, will it help with plant conservation? I suppose there's a general argument to be made that you can't work on a problem (e.g. plant extinctions) until you have all the available starting point information - in this case, we need to know what we have before we can start to protect it. And I guess the thinking is that there are so many different human activities affecting plant extinctions that the basic information needs to be in a form that is as accessible as possible to lots of people with minimal specialist knowledge. I have no idea how useful it will be. But I assume botanical specialists decided it would be useful. If I don't assume that, then I have to assume it was simply devised to provide them with paid work. I'm a cynic by nature, but I'd like to think it's the first one.
-
Like Lesley and Olga, my instincts told me to stay out of this morass. Why do I never listen to my instincts?!
-
Botany is namely a science, its results are therefore ephemeral, subjective and relative.
A curious view of science.
I think Great Moravian has a point here. A scientific statement can never be proved but falsified. This is the difference between a religion with its dogmas and science. The result is science evolve and religion does not.
What is accepted as a "scientific truth" today may be deficient or wrong in the future.
-
The plant list is in my view an ambitious but good initiative. It combines the existing databases in such a way that it makes cross-referencing possible and thereby gives the option to decide for oneself as well as being a quick and easy "general status" check of a plant name.
The only real problem one could have is with the "accepted" bit as this is a rather arbitrary concept. Names are proposed, validly published according to the Code of Botanical Nomenclature but then the question arises whether the author of the specific name was "right". This is and shall always be a problem in taxonomy, no matter what list is produced or initiative is started. Are the arguments put forward by the author valid, logic etc... How many other "experts" follow the treatment of the author, how does one asses whether a name is accepted?. There are no general rules for that nor ever will be, it is not science in the sense that there are predictable and verifiable outcomes.
For a person who is not an expert in the field, that assesment is very difficult and the plant list "makes a choice" for them. The plant list has chosen to base the "accepted" on the basis of acknowledgements of that name in literature, a logical choice as it usually goes that way in real life. To me it is a bit unclear how they "weigh" the importance of the references but it does list the literature that accepted or not accepted and subsequently gives the option to look further. In my view the best solution under the circumstances unless someone else is able to come up with better criteria to judge when a plant name is "accepted".
But of course those more familiar with a genus will disagree with some of the accepted names, there is nothing new to that and that was already the case without the plant list. They tried to quantify the term "accepted name" in such a way that it is accessible to the non-expert, it is at least better than what was available before and it won't make much difference to the experts of genera because they will have their own ideas anyway..... ;)
If one disagrees with the reference that is mentioned under the "accepted by" no doubt one also disagrees with the endresult.
Whether one can quantify "accepted" or wants to is another discussion.
-
Taxonomists writing checklists and floras simply use names without accepted attribute, and explain or comment
their decisions. The reason is finding the truth. Clerks enjoy in making unsupported authoritative decisions
presented as final, accepted, stamped. The reason is issuing commands.
Nevertheless, the topic is not worth of continuing, plants and not names are our hobby. I simply wanted to
inform you about the clerical nature of all lists of accepted officially stamped names.
No generally accepted names exist in taxonomy.
-
Is it possible that the botanists responsible for compiling the list know that the people who will be using it on the ground in plant conservation around the world will be working in or for bureaucracies which, by their usually formal, rigid, rules-driven natures, tend to demand absolutes - such as "This is THE ACCEPTED fact" - rather than more tenuous and variable, maybe conflicting information. So the botanists knew that the list had to be expressed in certain (perhaps not very scientific) definite terms if it was going to be a tool that bureaucracies would accept and use?
-
Botany is namely a science, its results are therefore ephemeral, subjective and relative.
A curious view of science.
I think Great Moravian has a point here. A scientific statement can never be proved but falsified. This is the difference between a religion with its dogmas and science. The result is science evolve and religion does not.
What is accepted as a "scientific truth" today may be deficient or wrong in the future.
Statements in a science can be neither proved or falsified. The falsificationism of Karl Popper is best regarded (as Rom Harré has argued) as a 'moral rule' rather than as an epistemological claim. While it is true that statements in a science may be historically contingent, this does not justify the melodramatic claims of Great Moravian ("subjective", "relative")
-
My claims are not melodramatic but precisely reflecting reality.
-
Just in form of a wink, in the middle of this "philosophical" discussion, from a so-called "scientist", but also from a woman...
I remember a TV program by Stephen Hawkins about the origins of the Universe, where he stated that without some imperfection during the first instants after the Big Bang, the universe (and ourselves) would never have existed!
May this "Plant List", how imperfect it may be, lead to some kind of interesting results too, even if tiny in the Science universe, dear Great Moravian! ;)
-
#1: I still do not understand why the staff of Kew is composed by clerks. By the way, I refuse to believe that clerks are inferior.
#2: In my meaning of the words, "generally accepted" means accepted by a majority. I still do not understand why that is impossible or does not exist. It does not mean the eternal and ultimateh truth of anything. (Is this all a semantic misunderstanding??)
#3: Anyone who looks at the list will find that it A: gives author and publication for the names B: Adresses the degree of generality.
#4: I think that it is a little melodramatic to state that the staff of two of the worlds greatest botanical gardens are mere clerks.
Hoy:
The fact that a scientific statment may change does not mean that it can not be accepted by most people as correct today. The approach that nothing can be proven is meaningless. If the Great Moravian were true to his belief he could not use a name on any plant because it might be changed in the future. We could also say that it is unproven that Napoleon is dead since this is another statement that can only be falsified.
Göte.
PS
I think that it would be well if we tried to avoid insulting people wholesale - be they clerks or taxonomists.
PPS
I find the list very useful as a statement of what most people seem to believe today and this belief is sufficiently similar to a truth
-
#1: I still do not understand why the staff of Kew is composed by clerks. By the way, I refuse to believe that clerks are inferior.
#2: In my meaning of the words, "generally accepted" means accepted by a majority. I still do not understand why that is impossible or does not exist. It does not mean the eternal and ultimateh truth of anything. (Is this all a semantic misunderstanding??)
#3: Anyone who looks at the list will find that it A: gives author and publication for the names B: Adresses the degree of generality.
#4: I think that it is a little melodramatic to state that the staff of two of the worlds greatest botanical gardens are mere clerks.
Hoy:
The fact that a scientific statment may change does not mean that it can not be accepted by most people as correct today. The approach that nothing can be proven is meaningless. If the Great Moravian were true to his belief he could not use a name on any plant because it might be changed in the future. We could also say that it is unproven that Napoleon is dead since this is another statement that can only be falsified.
Göte.
PS
I think that it would be well if we tried to avoid insulting people wholesale - be they clerks or taxonomists.
PPS
I find the list very useful as a statement of what most people seem to believe today and this belief is sufficiently similar to a truth
Göte,
You misunderstands me. I tried to persuade you about correctness of different names for a particular plant,
depending on the adopted taxonomic treatment. Different taxonomic treatments can describe reality
equally faithfully, and several taxonomic treatments together provide ideal insight.
Generally accepted doesn't mean accepted by majority. Scientific results cannot be obtained by voting nor
by authoritative decision, but merely by subjective perception of available information.
The scientific staff in Kew works on other important problems, it is dehonesting
to present lists of accepted names as their principal achievement.
-
Totally agree Great Moravian,
These lists help to know how many names recived the same plant through the Botany History by different authors. Accepted doesn't means Correct.
For example, recently I visited a Crocus locality in Cádiz. The plant was currently named Crocus serotinus subsp. clusii, but it hasn't any relation with this species. The plant is in fact Crocus clusii J. Gay, so why I have to use C. serotinus subsp. clusii? and from now, why to use subsp. salzmanii if there is only C. serotinus without subspecies?
So IPNI, o KEW or any other could say C. serotinus subsp. clusii, but I preffer to use C. clusii because I KNOW both species.
If we talk about Narcissus genus...... ::) more than 80% in RHS Narcissus Names, are wrong to me. In fact many names are no longer valid for the authors that published their species.
-
There is a discussion going on along similar lines on Alpine-L, here is my initial take on The Plant List:
http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/2011-January/034725.html
-
There is a discussion going on along similar lines on Alpine-L, here is my initial take on The Plant List:
http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/2011-January/034725.html
and here's mine (with apologies to Alpine elves for cross posting):
I had hoped that The Plant List would be a a fuller version of the current Kew checklist which can be seen here:
http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/prepareChecklist.do;jsessionid=DC5C3DA3C9B7A806441F261346E20CD2?checklist=selected_families%40%40047160220082312474 (http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/prepareChecklist.do;jsessionid=DC5C3DA3C9B7A806441F261346E20CD2?checklist=selected_families%40%40047160220082312474)
I have found the Kew list a very good reference as it lists synonyms and basionyms and the names go down to subspecies level. If you type in a genus, you get a useful list of published names. Unfortunately, it is only available for monocots and a few dicot families, such as Campanulaceae which has undergone a fairly significant overhaul.
I had hoped that The Plant List would complete this job and present the material in the same way. Unfortunately it doesn't. I have not yet had time to fully review what it offers, but for the bit I have looked at, I cannot understand what is going on and the tiny bit I looked at is inconsistent in itself, and also does not agree with IPNI. I have taken a look at Cyclamen, a fairly small genus with which I am very familiar. Firstly, there seem to be two lists for the genus Cyclamen. If you go in from the home page and go to Primulaceae, then to Cyclamen, you land on this page
http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Primulaceae/Cyclamen/ (http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Primulaceae/Cyclamen/)
which lists 23 species, starting with C abchasicum and later on other no longer valid names such as C adzharicumC circassicum. clicking on C abchasicum tells us that this name is the accepted name of a species in the genus Cyclamen.
Strangely, there is a second page for the genus, we need to go back to the home page and put Cyclamen in the search box, that takes us to a different page
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/search?q=cyclamen (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/search?q=cyclamen)
On this page, we have at first glance a more useful list. There are synonyms which are "greyed out" so you can see then at a glance. So I took a look at C abchasicum which is now listed twice, once "greyed out" (as a synonym) and again, this time in bold (an accepted species). The greyed out name C abchasicum when clicked, leads us to the statement "This name is a synonyn of Cyclamen coum ssp caucasicum" (which is what I thought all along) and references this to IPNI. The name in bold C abchasicum when clicked leads us the statement "This name is the accepted name of a species" and references this to Tropicos.
So how can we make any sense of this? There are several other issues with the genus Cyclamen e.g C elegans, confusum and rhodium perhaps these are just not up to date? but then I agree with Gary that maybe the list was released too early. Can anyone explain if I am missing something or defend what has been included. My experience with it so far would lead me to doubt being able to make any use of it at all.
-
Göte,
You misunderstands me. I tried to persuade you about correctness of different names for a particular plant,
depending on the adopted taxonomic treatment. Different taxonomic treatments can describe reality
equally faithfully, and several taxonomic treatments together provide ideal insight.
Generally accepted doesn't mean accepted by majority. Scientific results cannot be obtained by voting nor
by authoritative decision, but merely by subjective perception of available information.
The scientific staff in Kew works on other important problems, it is dehonesting
to present lists of accepted names as their principal achievement.
I apologize for reverting late to the thread but I have had other things to attend to like half a meter of snow.
It seems that there is a semantic problem involved here. In some languages the word ’general’ has a flavour of the absolute and of finality that it in English has not. In English it means ’Most but not necessarily all’. In fact, by using the word, the speaker implies that he indeed suspects or knows that exceptions do exist. A list of Generally Accepted Names means that a majority of those involved accept these names. It does not mean that they are some kind of ultimate truth. I suggest a visit to http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/generally
I do not imply that the staff of Kew does nothing but producing lists - however, it seems obvious that their organisation stands behind the list so the harsh words against against the list, and those who compile it, spills over on them as a group.
Scientific plant names do exist. We all use them. They exist if and only if they refer back to a published description. Unless all copies of the original publication have been destroyed, it is possible to prove the existence. That we call them scientific has no philosophical meaning - it means that they are not the vernacular and that they conform to certain rules. It is not possible to falsify that the name exists if the description can be found and the rules have been followed.
It is also usually possible to prove that a certain specimen fits the description - or not - as the case may be. If a specimen has three anthers and the description says “three anthers” this can be proven and not falsified.
The fact that a certain scientific name exists does not mean that it necessarily is a good and meaningful one. The name (with its description) circumscribes a group of specimen. This grouping seemed useful to the original auctor of the name but others may have different opinion. When more knowledge is available, (with time or from others) there might be reasons to change the grouping. More rarely it is found that the description was invalid because of not conforming to the rules. Thus it happens that a name should be abandoned or the description amended. Obviously, names are in a certain flux as science progresses.
It is necessary to make the distinction here. The names are a framework or tool just as mathematics is and cannot be falsified. The application of a name can be falsified. We have to distinguish between dogmas, names, hypotheses and theories. The fact that aritmetic cannot be falsified does not make it invalid.
The list can have errors but, as I read it, it does adress the degree of acceptance and it points to the original publications.
Cyclamen abchasicum Kolak. is NOT the same as Cyclamen abchasicum (Medw.) Kolak. ex Pobed. This seems to be one of the unfortunate cases when the same name has been applied to two different taxons and with more than one description. I think the list is quite clear here. It states on an intermediate confidence level that:
#1: There is one taxon that should be called Cyclamen coum subsp. caucasicum (K.Koch) O.Schwarz. and which has been erroneously called Cyclamen abchasicum (Medw.) Kolak. ex Pobed.
#2: There is another taxon that should be called Cyclamen abchasicum Kolak.
Whoever wants to dispute this can follow the threads including visiting the herbaria where the type specimen are stored. Ambiguities such as this are precisely what the list is supposed to help solving.
Re Crocus serotinus subsp. clusii. The list tells us that it is Brian Matthew who is responsible for the transfer from Crocus clusii J. Gay. Anyone who has valid reason to doubt the transfer can ask him about his reasons and try to persuade him that he was wrong - or that Crocus clusii J. Gay exists as a separate species. It may well be that Brian has found that all herbarium specimen available to him labeled as Crocus clusii J. Gay in fact were misnamed forms of serotinus - not knowing that Crocus clusii J. Gay is still around.
A first approach could be to search the Kew Bulletine 32: 46 (1977). where the reasons might be given.
Cheers
Göte
-
Well, the Plant List has helped me find synonyms for 3 more of the packets of seeds confiscated by AQIS (Australian Quarantine Inspection Service). They aren't on the "allowed" list under their current names - but they are allowed under the "older" names! I'm hoping to see these released to me!
In this case we are dealing with clerks rather than scientists!
cheers
fermi
-
The same applies here Fermi. Relatively few Narcissus e.g., were allowed through happily but once the taxonomists started splitting and reassigning, there are heaps that MAF won't recognise even though they were previously acceptable under "old" names. Lots more work for you and me to do and the seed even older by the time it reaches us. >:(
-
Göte,
you are out in all points. I shall try to remain polite. For instance the Cyclamen abchasicum.
---
In TPL you obtain the following
Cyclamen abchasicum Kolak. is an accepted name
Pushing TROPICOS button
Cyclamen abchasicum Kolak.
and pushing IPNI right above now you obtain
Cyclamen abchasicum Kolak. ex Pobed. -- Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst.
Komarova Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 13: 194, cum descr. lat. 1950
---
In TPL you obtain the following
Cyclamen abchasicum (Medw.) Kolak. ex Pobed. is a synonym of Cyclamen
coum
subsp. caucasicum (K.Koch) O.Schwarz
This name is a synonym of Cyclamen coum subsp. caucasicum (K.Koch)
O.Schwarz
and
original publication details: Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad.
Nauk S.S.S.R. 13: 194 1950.
---
So the references are undoubtedly to one description and the arguments by you are nonsense.
All the argumentation by you is similarly unacceptable and cannot be taken seriously.
-
While this thread contains some interesting points and the Plant List obviously has its uses, could it be closed now before someone says something he or she has cause to regret?
-
A good point Lesley... it would be a matter of some regret if forumists were to take the matter of personal comment any further.
-
A perfect idea.
-
In my view, the plant list is a great resource. It would be unfortunate if the unduly heated discussion were to dissuade the members from using it.
Unfortunately the usual advice applies. "If nothing else works - read the instructions".
Many - not only on the SRGC forum seem to jump to the plant names of their own interest and agree or disagree with what they think they read without consulting the basic information about how the list is compiled and how it can be used. The list is a tool and if one disagrees with some information, it does not help to shoot the messenger.
The list is a working document and can only give a snapshot of the present situation as gleaned from the databases included. This is stated clearly and it is also stated that further information is welcome. I find myself that the list is very conservative and I disagree on points but this is to be expected. I do not disagree with the list. I disagree with the underlying documentation.
It is natural that recent information will take its time to reach the list. We cannot expect to find help in the list regarding newly found species such as the many newly found Epimediums; only about species that are relatively well known.
A direct search for a name will give all references to that name including synonyms.
A search for a genus will give list of accepted names within that genus without references to the synonyms. (I think that this might be a mistake. It would be better if the species name clearly linked to the synonym list)
In a question as this about the Cyclamen, it is necessary to do what we amateurs usually do not - including the auctor - and perhaps even publication details. It happens surprisingly often that botanists have given the same name to different taxons. Only one name is of course valid but since the invalid name is still around in various publications it is, in such cases, necessary to give also the auctor. Much of the confusion comes from this omission of auctor.
Naming mistakes is one of the frustrations we all meet. As I see it, the list is helpful since it gives information about auctors, publications, synonyms etc that otherwise is only available in monographs, to which few of us have access.
Have a nice weekend everybody
Göte
-
I wish that there was more consistency among the various resources. Attempting to use IPNI, TPL, Tropicos, and Kew to chase down the publication of some Hypericum epithets for a possible ID, the more I look at these sources, the more confusing it becomes, and the inconsistencies and omissions seem more the norm than the exception. In my search Kew couldn't be used, as they don't cover the Hypericaceae. See the following SRGC plant ID topic:
http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=6525.0
http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=6525.msg180648#msg180648
-
Only one name is of course valid
No comment ...
-
yesterday whilst reading last weeks Telegraph gardening section I discovered that all classification problems have been solved now and forever. It was an explanation that DNA was the final answer.I discovered that the foxglove is no longer a member of scrophulariaceae but buddleia is.Also the horse chestnut and maples are related to lychee.The following is from the final paragraph.
Quote
The DNA revolution may be messing up some bits of the plant kingdom that we'd prefer left alone.but at least it will never happen again.
Later on in the evening listening to the radio I heard a statement made by a scientist a century ago saying 'Science has no further to go everything is now known'
I think I will leave my foxgloves where they are.
-
Tony,
certainly a case of 'famous last words'! With the increasing understanding of epigenetics, we will see another paradigm shift in relationships.
As to the Plant List, I find its publication a bit premature, as it is still full of known errors, due to the slow movement of taxonomy. Take it with a grain of salt.
Jamie
-
yesterday whilst reading last weeks Telegraph gardening section I discovered that all classification problems have been solved now and forever. It was an explanation that DNA was the final answer.I discovered that the foxglove is no longer a member of scrophulariaceae
Before all, molecular interpreters are not taxonomists.
Molecular interpreters belong to the category of
fulguratores and haruspices.
Maggi should not continue reading because she
doesn't understand humour which is not polite.
Vyhladovělá skupinka vykladačů molekul potká v horách baču.
"Hej bačo, prodej nám ovečku."
"A proč bych jednu neprodal. Zaplaťte a jednu si vyberte."
Vykladači molekul zaplatí, vyberou si a odcházejí.
"Hej vy, ale toho psa mi tu nechte."
A translation trial.
A hungry group of molecular interpreters meets a shepherd in the mountains.
"Hey shepherd, sell us a little sheep."
"And why should I not sell one. Pay for it and choose one."
Molecular interpreters pay, choose and leave.
"Hey you, let the dog here at me."
-
Tony,
With the increasing understanding of epigenetics, we will see another paradigm shift in relationships.
Jamie
Jamie - are you using 'epigenetics' in the Aristotelian sense to mean development (i.e., the sense revived by C.H. Waddington in the 1930s)? If so, then I agree with you. Preliminary attempts in this direction (by the late Brian Goodwin) have postulated relationships which are quite counter-intuitive.
-
A hungry group of molecular interpreters meets a shepherd in the mountains.
"Hey shepherd, sell us a sheep."
"Okay. Give me the money and choose one."
Molecular interpreters pay, choose and leave.
Shepherd shouts after them: "Hey you lot, give me my bloody dog back!."
I think I've tidied up the translation correctly. I think it's funny, in an incredibly
geeky sort of way ;D
-
Martin,
You are great.
-
A hungry group of molecular interpreters meets a shepherd in the mountains.
"Hey shepherd, sell us a sheep."
"Okay. Give me the money and choose one."
Molecular interpreters pay, choose and leave.
Shepherd shouts after them: "Hey you lot, give me my bloody dog back!."
I think I've tidied up the translation correctly. I think it's funny, in an incredibly
geeky sort of way ;D
Oh, so that is a joke?
I thought it was just a true story...... [attach=1]
-
A hungry group of molecular interpreters meets a shepherd in the mountains.
"Hey shepherd, sell us a sheep."
"Okay. Give me the money and choose one."
Molecular interpreters pay, choose and leave.
Shepherd shouts after them: "Hey you lot, give me my bloody dog back!."
I think I've tidied up the translation correctly. I think it's funny, in an incredibly
geeky sort of way ;D
Oh, so that is a joke?
So we are told.
-
Oh, so that is a joke?
No, it isn't. It is reality. In an allegory.
-
Tony,
certainly a case of 'famous last words'! With the increasing understanding of epigenetics, we will see another paradigm shift in relationships.
Horizontal gene transfer is more upsetting.
-
Re Crocus serotinus subsp. clusii. The list tells us that it is Brian Matthew who is responsible for the transfer from Crocus clusii J. Gay. Anyone who has valid reason to doubt the transfer can ask him about his reasons and try to persuade him that he was wrong - or that Crocus clusii J. Gay exists as a separate species. It may well be that Brian has found that all herbarium specimen available to him labeled as Crocus clusii J. Gay in fact were misnamed forms of serotinus - not knowing that Crocus clusii J. Gay is still around.
A first approach could be to search the Kew Bulletine 32: 46 (1977). where the reasons might be given.
Maybe this is the problem, most of herbarium sheet are wrong. This crocus is the only Iberian species with reticulate tunics and I think it is C. clusii... if not it will be a new species without name.
-
Joke or not, I love it. ;D
-
Maybe this is the problem, most of herbarium sheet are wrong. This crocus is the only Iberian species with reticulate tunics and I think it is C. clusii... if not it will be a new species without name.
Original description
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4441782
and a characterization of it
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15330367
and coloured images
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15330365
-
Thank you very much Great Moravian, no deubt it is C. clusii Gay. It is exactly the place I pictured this Crocus, Chiclana de la Frontera. Alfredo Barra, our expert Crocus botanist, also consider C. clusii is a valid species and don't support N. serotinus subspecies.
Appart all valid and distinctive characters, it is very important the "ecología and fenología" (ecology and phenology?) It blooms one month later than C. serotinus and C. nudiflorus in a southern part of Iberian Peninsula! in Pinus maritimus woods near the sea.... I can't imagine a C. serotinus in that places as it grows in Quercus forest and high altitude mountains.
-
I profoundly disagree with Great Moravian's remarks on science in general & molecular phylogenetics in particular. However, I am very grateful to him for drawing my attention to the online Biodiversity Library - an invaluable resource.
-
Gerry,
After 38 years in research and science I dare say a scientist should
formulate new results via ideas and insight.
-
Gerry,
After 38 years in research and science I dare say a scientist should
formulate new results via ideas and insight.
38 years for me too!
-
more time researching than I have been alive... :-[ ;D
-
Later on in the evening listening to the radio I heard a statement made by a scientist a century ago saying 'Science has no further to go everything is now known'
I did not know you listened to the radio over a hundred years ago ;D ;D
Göte
-
As to the Plant List, I find its publication a bit premature, as it is still full of known errors, due to the slow movement of taxonomy. Take it with a grain of salt.
Jamie
Do'nt shoot the pianist! he did not write the music. ;D
The name of the plant list is of course misleading. It does not list plants. It lists dfinitions as found in floras and elsewhere. If the definition is inappropriate it is not the list that is wrong.
Göte
I am also grateful to the Great Moravian for pointing to the crocus reference. Thank you!
-
I profoundly disagree with Great Moravian's remarks on science in general & molecular phylogenetics in particular.
There are taxonomists whose opinion about molecular interpreters is highly critical too.
Using the necessary courteous phraseology of course.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fiapt%2ftax%2f2010%2f00000059%2f00000006%2fart00001&mimetype=application%2fpdf
-
Later on in the evening listening to the radio I heard a statement made by a scientist a century ago saying 'Science has no further to go everything is now known'
I did not know you listened to the radio over a hundred years ago ;D ;D
Göte
A certain man with brown skin (about whom, as I'm white, I musn't make a joke) told me that when two of our native wood pigeons are seen sitting together on the power lines, it means there will be rain within hours. "We've always known this" he said, "for at least 200 years." Funnily enough, when I see pigeons sitting on the power lines, it frequently DOES rain, very soon afterwards.
-
I profoundly disagree with Great Moravian's remarks on science in general & molecular phylogenetics in particular.
There are taxonomists whose opinion about molecular interpreters is highly critical too.
Using the necessary courteous phraseology of course.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fiapt%2ftax%2f2010%2f00000059%2f00000006%2fart00001&mimetype=application%2fpdf
Josef - I cannot remember what I disagreed about with respect to molecular phylogenetics & the link does not work so I cannot respond further.