Galanthus naming- digression from Gala 2012 thread

[Paddy Tobin]

.........under the nomenclature rules, once a name is formally published, with a description, .....then that name cannot be used again for the same genus .........not a justification for both flouting the nomenclature rules...........Now it will be left to Matt Bishop to sort this out......... he will instead have to insist on another name being chosen - but in the meanwhile snowdrops bearing this invalis name will be circulating.

This all feels a bit heavy. And a touch authoritarian. The power to decree what is or isn't permissible for the whole of the genus Galanthus rests with one person? I mean, COME ON!! It's little white flowers, not membership of the MCC.
[/quote]

Steve, your post, above, might be considered "personal criticism" when, in fact, the original poster was simply quoting/paraphrasing of the guidelines on naming plants.

I agree with Maggie's comments on the naming of plants.

I do not wish you any disrespect, criticism or unhappiness while making these remarks.

Paddy

[Alan_b]

By the way, dare I suggest that the magic of moderation be used to split off the, err, 'debate' on nomenclature into its own thread as it seems to have lost any relationship to the Gala?

[Maggi Young]

Thank you for the suggestion, Alan.
The posts referring to the possibilities of naming two plants as 'Ruby Baker' are spread throughout the pages and many contain other points referring to the Gala itself. It would be rather confusing to try to sort out one from another, I fear and lead to further misunderstanding of points being made.

Edit by maggi 12/02/12

I have split the thread as suggested.

[KentGardener]

Maggi - thank you so much for splitting all these separate posts off from the Gala thread.  It has been interesting to read them all back to back - I must have missed some of them in the Gala thread (as I wasn't going to the Gala I didn't concentrate too hard on that thread).

Having moderated on 2 different plant forums myself I know exactly how much work was involved in splitting 62 posts out!  Well done for your patience. 

Johnx 

[Jo]

Matt told me Joe will have to change his named r-o. Maybe simply 'Ruby'?

oops that was me posting - Mark

[steve owen]

.........under the nomenclature rules.......Now it will be left to Matt Bishop to sort this out......... he will instead have to insist on another name being chosen........

This all feels a bit heavy. And a touch authoritarian. The power to decree what is or isn't permissible for the whole of the genus Galanthus rests with one person?

Steve, your post, above, might be considered "personal criticism" when, in fact, the original poster was simply quoting/paraphrasing of the guidelines on naming plants. 

Paddy

[/quote]

Paddy
What rules or guidelines contain the stipulation that one single named person (and the post to which I replied did identify this person, remember) has unchallengeable right to act alone in the matter of naming plants? For that is the nub of my point above (I have edited out other material to aid focus on this point). If you or anyone else can quote a clear unambiguous reference to written official rules that allocate such power to a single named person, do please point me to them.
Steve

[Paddy Tobin]

Steve,

It seems clear to me that the guidelines for naming plants were not followed in this instance - the name "Ruby Baker" was applied to a snowdrop when another snowdrop had previously been given this name. The snowdrop first named has precedence and the second would have to be renamed. However, it seems that there is a reluctance to rename the second snowdrop in this instance and so there is a danger of confusion.

Matt Bishop and others will soon publish a new edition of "Snowdrops" and, in their listing of snowdrops, will have to examine the situation regarding these two snowdrops and make a decision on which has precedence for use of the name. It is in this situation that the decision of this naming will fall into the lap of Matt Bishop and his co-authors. "Snowdrops" has, I believe, general acceptance as the standard book on the genus galanthus and as long as the authors deal with issues such as that above with fairness and in line with established guidelines then their authority will have general acceptance. It is not a case of being authoritarian or heavy but of examining a situation and applying the guidelines fairly.



Paddy

[steve owen]

Dear me, Steve, for a man who has a national collection I would have thought  that you would have understood the importance of clarity and lack of ambiguity in naming.

For those of us who truly delight in the glory of the flowers, there is more of the Gradgrind in the obsessive naming and and collecting than in a simple desire to wish that a name means something tangible.
I fear you are missing my point.

Maggie
I do feel that sometimes you stray from fair comment into personal criticism. Surely if you want to be really critical, a PM is the best first step - even if you are the Site Moderator?  However if public criticism is in order, no doubt you won't object to this publicly-posted reply. In regret -
Steve

There was no intention by Maggi Young to cast aspersions on the important work that Steve Owen does in holding a National Collection. Indeed Maggi has the deepest respect for all the holders of national collections who, like Members of  the SRGC volunteer their time in the cause of the plants.

Thanks Ian. There is also much appreciation for the time and commitment Maggie (and you and others) give to organising and sustaining SRGC.
Steve 

[Martin Baxendale]

Matt told me Joe will have to change his named r-o. Maybe simply 'Ruby'?

oops that was me posting - Mark

Not sure how exactly anyone can make Joe change the name unless he agrees to, but it'll be interesting to see what the outcome of all this is.