Monocarpic---a valid term for bulbs ???

[Maggi Young]

With that in mind, let me try a different approach. If Cardiocrinum is monotypic, please explain to me why Tulipa is not. 

Hang on, Jim, surely you don't mean monotypic ? If you did, then I'm going to get confused.... for me, "monotypic"  refers to a plant which is a opne of a kind type.... as in " a monotypic genus"  such as Pteridophyllum racemosum or Ginko biloba (shown in its glorious golden autumn foliage elswhere in this Forum) for instance??

[Jim McKenney]

Whoops! Thank you for catching this, Maggi.

Of course, I meant monocarpic.

[gote]

A word can certainly be used in the wrong way but if a majority of  specialists in a field use it in one way this is the meaning of the word in that field.
 
I have seen - and quoted - examples that say that Cardiocrinum is monocarp. Some literature give Agave americana as a typical monocarp species.

I have seen nobody except Jim who claims otherwise. Excuse me Jim but what is your authority to say that the authors of these publications are wrong?

Those who use the word for Cardiocrinum and Agave (including myself) are well aware that Cardiocrinum and Agave also propagate by offsets. We are not mistaken about the behavior of the plant (that would have been a basis for saying that the word is wrongly used) and that behavious is precisely what we mean by the word. Therefore the reference to Carlton (which I also saw some years ago) is beside the point. It is also a doubtful statement - something that every identical twin would tell you.

Göte


   

[Michael]

This is interesting, i dont know how i missed this thread. 
It makes me think and i also agree with you. If one say that an agave is monocarpic, and what about the tiny offsets it leaves after blooming?? Since they are genetically identical to the mother plant, they can be somehow considered as the same plant, because its genome is still living, and so on... Here rises a problem of individuality, on most animals its simple to define it, but with plants, well...
Here in madeira we have lots of truely monocarpic plants (of course none of them is bulbous), in wich the indivudual totally dies after blooming, leaving no part of it's genome alive after it sets seed. Examples like Musschia wollastonii, Melanoselinum decipiens (that i already had shown in other post i didi), the famous Geranium maderense, all of them live for a couple of years and then dies after a spectacular display of blooms... I also think that these are truely monocarpic species, whereas Agave is not, because it "still lives" after blooming... But still its difficult to say something, as they mostly define monocarpic as "something that dies out after blooming". Even annual plants behave like this...

[Gerry Webster]

the reference to Carlton (which I also saw some years ago) is beside the point. It is also a doubtful statement - something that every identical twin would tell you.

The fact that we do not conventionally regard identical twins as one individual has little bearing on whether in some particular context we should regard 'Carlton' as one plant. In the traditional English (Christian) view of marriage, husband & wife were regarded as one person - "of one flesh" - a view which had important legal consequences. The United States of America is regarded in many contexts as one country  despite the fact that its constituent parts are separated by large areas of land or water. Likewise the United Kingdom. Questions about individuality have been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries & there  are no easy or universal  answers. Decisions have to be made  for every particular case. In the context of the Garden Centre, every bulb of 'Carlton' is a distinct individual & one pays accordingly.

[Jim McKenney]

A word can certainly be used in the wrong way but if a majority of  specialists in a field use it in one way this is the meaning of the word in that field.
 
I have seen - and quoted - examples that say that Cardiocrinum is monocarp. Some literature give Agave americana as a typical monocarp species.

I have seen nobody except Jim who claims otherwise. Excuse me Jim but what is your authority to say that the authors of these publications are wrong?

   

Göte, let's look at this discussion as if it were an argument in the formal logical sense (as indeed it is).

In terms of logic, your appeals to authority confuse what some philosophers distinguish as the contexts of discovery and the contexts of justification. That is to say, the source of an idea (whether from a Nobel Prize winner or a raving lunatic) has no bearing on the validity (in the logical sense) of that idea.

The idea has to stand or fall on its own merits.

I believe that you have yet to make the case that this one can stand on its own merits.

[Gerry Webster]

It seems to me that this discussion is persistently confusing matters of fact with matters of logic. Having criticised  Gote, I now  have to say, Jim, that your reference to the distinction made by Karl Popper is beside the point. If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic  is a purely empirical question; logic is neither here nor there. In this context 'an appeal to authority' while neither completely decisive nor entirely rational is a normal practice in science.  Strictly speaking, almost every experiment in  physiology is a test of the "laws" of physics but is not conventionally so regarded (though over the course of time some particular experiment might come to be so regarded). There is a necessary element of pragmatism in science &, put crudely, it is generally accepted that some people know more about some things than other people. On the other hand, if there is no agreement about the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then there can be no meaningful discussion, hence no disagreement about any particular plant. Of course, spurious discussions of this kind have been by no means uncommon in the history of science; the debate about 'species' after Darwin would be one example.

[Jim McKenney]

If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic  is a purely empirical question; logic is neither here nor there.

Gerry, it seems to me that your "if" says it all. I agree with your "if" statement, but it's irrelevent.  Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem.

If one authority gives as the meaning of monocarpic what happens in Echium, and another authority gives as its meaning what happens in Cardiocrinum,

[Jim McKenney]

Sorry, I dropped my keyboard in the throes of composing that last post and it got sent inadvertantly.

I'll post the finsihed version soon.

[Jim McKenney]

And as you can see, it wasn't spell checked either!

[Gerry Webster]

Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem.
If one authority gives as the meaning of monocarpic what happens in Echium, and another authority gives as its meaning what happens in Cardiocrinum,

Jim -  I should probably wait for your completed post but I wish to go off & restore my mind by listening to Haydn (I daresay you'll understand). However, if things are as you state then I can only repeat that there is no basis for discussion, hence no basis for  disagreement. 'Monocarpic' has more than one meaning just as 'species'  did (& does).

[Jim McKenney]

If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic  is a purely empirical question;

Gerry, it seems to me that your "if" says it all. I agree with your "if" statement, but it's irrelevant.  Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem. And since there is no such agreement, appeals to authorities will not solve the problem.

To use your approach, Cardiocirnum is monotypic according to the subset of authorities who have commented on Cardiocrinum. But is Cardiocrinum monotypic according to the greater set of authorities who have commented on the topic monocarpy across the spectrum of plant life?

Let's try to keep the discussion simple. Let's hope more people are interested in this than that presumably small set of readers who are already familiar with the work of Karl Popper. If monocarpic means "the plant dies after setting seed", then Cardiocrinum is not monocarpic. I think we both agree that the argument involving the meaning of the word "individual' is a red herring.

If Cardiocrinum means something else, then perhaps Cardiocrinum is monocarpic. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and see if I can do a reductio ad absurdum with an alternative meaning. Let's say for this purpose that monocarpic does not mean "the plant dies after setting seed" but instead it means "the main sprout of the plant dies after setting seed".
Here's how it will go:
Is Cardiocrinum monocarpic according to this alternate definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Is Lilium monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Is Tulipa monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Are all north temperate bulbs monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because their main sprouts die after setting seed.
Are [fill in the blank with thousands of other taxa] monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because their main sprouts die after setting seed.

Need more?
What about plants which do not have an obvious main stem? Are they monocarpic, too?
All ovaries set seed only once if that; they are all monocarpic.

So, all plants have something about them which is monocarpic?

Yes, all plants have monocarpic ovaries.

So, all plants are monocarpic?



We got into this mess because, on the one hand, there is something about Cardiocrinum which reminds us of the behavior of truly monocarpic plants: one year there is a big bloom stalk which sets seed and the next year it is gone. It will not do to say that the main stem is monocarpic; the main, annual stem of all of our familiar garden monocots behaves the same way.

It seems to me that we have two choices: either Cardiocrinum is not monocarpic, or it is and so too are all other related genera.

I opt for the former.

After writing the above, I went back and read your most recent post, Gerry. Let's agree that although monocarpic might have more than one meaning, the usage of the word should be consistent, especially when applied to closely related plants.

Haydn sounds delightful right about now.

And I hope everyone got a good look at the full moon this evening: the biggest of the year.



 

[rob krejzl]

This thread seems to have developed into a botanical version of Zeno's Paradox.

Perhaps quoting part of the judgement in Elton John's recent libel case would help: "It is common ground that the meaning of words, in law as in life, depends upon their context."

Surely, just as one accepts that the pronunciation of a Latin name should be such that one's audience recognises the plant in question, one also accepts that the definition of monocarpic depends upon the context in which it is placed.

[David Nicholson]

.............. oh God, life's too short!

[Gerry Webster]

.............. oh God, life's too short!

David - this is one of the things that keeps us young!