South American Bulbous Plants 2010

[Ezeiza]

Unfortunately research goes faster than one would wish.

Phalocallis is included in Cypella along with several other previous "genera". They are anatomically Cypellas.

Phalocallis is a subgenus of Cypella and comprises 3 species.

The current name for the plant in the photo is Cypella coelestis. Cypella plumbea is a darker form of Cypella coelestis thst seem to be extinct in the wild. Does it exist in cultivation?

Cypella coelestis has a subtropical origin and last a very long season of bloom under warmish conditions, like those suited for Cape bulbs.

The most recent info on the subject is in "The Iris Family" by Peter Goldblatt.

Something unexpected is that the plants we all thought to be Cypella peruviana and kin (the former Hesperoxiphion peruvianum) since they look so "Cypelloid" is taxonomically distant and therefore the genus Hesperoxiphion has been restored now.

Diane, hope this is of help.

Best

Alberto

[Gail]

Okay - I think I'll leave it without a label!

[Diane Clement]

Unfortunately research goes faster than one would wish. Phalocallis is included in Cypella along with several other previous "genera". They are anatomically Cypellas. Phalocallis is a subgenus of Cypella and comprises 3 species.
The current name for the plant in the photo is Cypella coelestis. Cypella plumbea is a darker form of Cypella coelestis thst seem to be extinct in the wild. Does it exist in cultivation?
Diane, hope this is of help.
Best  Alberto 

Alberto, thanks for your great knowledge.  I haven't yet got a copy of the Goldblatt book, but I expect I will soon.  Does Goldblatt's work override that of APG3 as used by the Kew database?     

http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?accepted_id=324327&repSynonym_id=323772&name_id=324327&status=true

[Ezeiza]

Dear Diane:

                 Yes, it is a densely technical book with all recent molecular DNA findings, covering all the genera of the Iridaceae. Some results are amazing, other disparate and a good deal logic and resonable. Even so, this is how far the knowledge of the family has gone and Peter has studied them for so many years that one can trust his taxonomy without doubts.

                  Kew is of course trying to establish a balance among the whirlwind of synonyms but one can find major "horrors" here and there. For instance, note they describe P. coelestis as "tuber geophyte" when it is a basic fact that all tigridioid irids have BULBS.

Best

[bulborum]

For all Zephyranthes Hybrids lovers
Just have a look here
This tells everything especially the fields under the named hybrids

http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/ZephyranthesHybrids

Roland

[bulborum]

And If you think is this all
here are some more Zephyranthes Hybrids

http://www.bulbnrose.org/Fadjar/fadjar1.htm

Roland

[Diane Clement]

Dear Diane: Yes, it is a densely technical book with all recent molecular DNA findings, covering all the genera of the Iridaceae. Some results are amazing, other disparate and a good deal logic and resonable. Even so, this is how far the knowledge of the family has gone and Peter has studied them for so many years that one can trust his taxonomy without doubts.

Kew is of course trying to establish a balance among the whirlwind of synonyms but one can find major "horrors" here and there. For instance, note they describe P. coelestis as "tuber geophyte" when it is a basic fact that all tigridioid irids have BULBS. 

It's very interesting, thanks for your comments, Alberto.  It just takes a while for the published versions of Kew database and the RHS database (which on this occasion, unusually, agree) to catch up with the latest research, which makes my job difficult as those databases are the ones commonly available to most people for consultation.

I'd be interested to hear your comments about the latest move by APG3 to put all of Alliaceae into Amaryllidaceae (AGP2 put them all together a few years ago, but under the name of Alliaceae, on the grounds that Alliaceae was the oldest name).  But now they have gone the other way, putting all of Alliaceae into Amaryllidaceae, and dragging Agapanthaceae along there as well.   

[Pascal B]

Diane,

The very fact that the Kew database and the RHS database sometimes disagree is a perfect example of how difficult new publications get accepted. The latest research is not necessarily the latest stand on a name or automatically reason to relabel a plant. Acceptance of new publications is a difficult and somewhat obscure proces that highly depends on "I agree" or "I disagree", both by the trade as well as science. Unfortunately most members on this forum don't have the knowledge to review new publications and make their own judgement so have to rely on "which name pops up the most" and how well one trusts someones "authority". Like Alberto trusts Peter Goldblatt and you might trust Alberto on his assesment of Peter's research. In taxonomy the number of times research is referred to in a positive way in related publications is generally a good sign of the acceptance in science.

When there is only one recent publication that proved a major step forward in the understanding of a genus, that will generally be accepted quite fast but the challenge is when there are several competing researches going on.

To give a good example, recently 2 new publications were released on a aroid genus not many people are familiar with: Typhonium. Probably best known for Typhonium/Sauromatum venosum (syn. guttatum). Both publications were based on DNA research by reputable researchers but looking at different chloroplast regions. One publication resurrects the genus Sauromatum for a group of species that clearly show up as a distinct group in the phylogeny, the other looks at a different part of the DNA, find a "knot" in the phylogeny and split the entire genus into 3 new genera plus also resurrect Sauromatum!

So which is it going to be? Sauromatum and Typhonium or Sauromatum, Pedatityphonium, Hirsutarum and Diversiarum? To answer that question one has to look at the research itself, the authors and their reputation, previous publications of them on that genus or family, ones own knowledge and experience on that genus etc.... Not an easy task.

I have looked at the publications, noticed that the first research sampled a lot more species, the approach was well thought and extensive and saw a solution that made much more sense than the second publication. So personally I have not accepted the split of Typhonium in 3 new genera. But that is a personal choice based on the research itself, the taxonomic views of the researchers I know of both publications and my own understanding of the genus.

But I can imagine Kew has more scientific resources at hand than the RHS to review new articles and asses their quality and integrity so might be a bit more uptodate. But that is an assumption and who do you trust, Kew or the RHS? And who do the individuals that do the reviews at Kew or the RHS trust? Difficult isn't it....?

[Maggi Young]

.......Not to mention that to gain access to all the publications a private individual would need considerable financial resources.......

[Pascal B]

.......Not to mention that to gain access to all the publications a private individual would need considerable financial resources.......

Well, not necessarily... When I speak for myself, I take the train to the Leiden Herbarium and make photocopies of the articles in the Journals, only some of the books devoted to a single genus or family I buy but that is just because the price of the number of photocopies would equal that of the book. But you have to have the time and "drive" to look into a genus to such an extent and I have to admit, it is a lot easier to gain acces to the library in Leiden than for instance Kew, which seems submerged in rules and regulations.

Of RBGE I am not sure but they have a good library with most of the major taxonomic journals and I was allowed to visit the herbarium without a problem.

[Maggi Young]

I do not  doubt the quality and accessibility of the Library at Leiden, but for many people there is no question of actual access to such resources and to access the papers online is, for the most part,very expensive, as can be the books.

[Pascal B]

Maggi,

Very true and after writing my above reply I realised I was in a somewhat privileged position to be able to visit and use a place like the Leiden Herbarium which is easy to reach and acces, a position not everyone is in. But not everbody wants to look up these publications anyway and  I am sure that if a Scottish grower really wants to delve into a genus and wants to look up original descriptions, RBGE would be able to facilitate that as well without too much cost, it is a matter of being crazy enough about a genus to go that far....
Not many people are, most just want to rely on an authority for a name.

Do realise that true botanical research is rarely published in book-form, short 3-4 page articles in Journals is the more likely way that research is published and that is relatively easy to copy at low cost. Many botanical libraries provide that service if asked for and at a relatively low cost.
On the bright side, many herbaria start putting scans of herbaria specimens online (such as Kew) and some Journals are putting the issues of 3-4 years old online as PDF free to download, sometimes even issues as recent as 2009 like Taiwania (http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/taiwania/). More and more publications will appear in a electronic form and therefore accesible for everyone with internet.

The original description of the recently described Corydalis kedarensis from the Himalayas for instance can be found here free to download: http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/taiwania/pdf/tai.2009.54.4.334.pdf

[Maggi Young]

 I do hope that in future more papers will be available for free download..... they are in the minority at present.

[Ezeiza]

The immense majority of botanical publications even a few pages long, are sold at a price and in many cases, very expensive.

Photocopying such works is not everywhere legal. Botanists are heavily pressed to produce papers to maintain their heads off the water and this amounts for the multitude or irrelevant or extravagant findings that add so little substance to actual knowledge. We see a lot of them nowadays.

Splitting is a much abused field. Even if the splitting of a genus is absurd, it counts as another paper anyway and makes up for future grants.

Of course being able to judge the validity of a paper or nomenclatural change is difficult. The judging person must know all previous papers, and decide based on current knowledge. With tenths of thousands of species and new ones described all the time it is a monumental task and mistakes are natural.

[Pascal B]

Alberto,

Without taking this thread too much off-topic (sorry about that....), yes, scientists need to publish in order to establish themselves as scientists and add to their CV to get new grants for research, no doubt about that. The point is that the journal they publish in needs to have some income to finance the printed journal by subscriptions, which are expensive for the hobbyist. I am fortunate to be able to make copies but there is a trend among botanical Journals to at least put issues of 4-5 years back online free to download on the internet because they do not generate income anymore, that is of benifit to scientists and to hobbyists, a scientist does not receive royalties from a journal.

Some botanical institutes embrace the new digital age, some don't. Some offer their journal also electronically at a reduced subscription rate. Just with every media, botanical publications will adept to the electronic age, the development of things like the E-reader will promote that. Unfortunately new species can still only be published in a printed paper but if it wasn't for that, there would be no need to publish on paper anymore. Maybe even that will change in the near future? There are already signs in that direction.

In the eighth edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated plants a cultivar can still only be established in a published form and may not be effected by means of electronic media. However, if for instance the new cultivar is in a trade catalogue published in electronic media and 2 copies are printed of and desposited in a designated library it is allowed. Sounds rather twisted but it is a start.

Every scientists sends the data electronically to the journal he/she wants to publish in so why not publish it electronically? Saves paper and the environment, saves labour and makes it accesible to a much wider audience, doesn't any scientist want that?. Botanical institutes are slow to learn that times are changing, just like record companies...;-)

The first time I asked for a scan of a holotype from Kew I had to sign a paper with all sort of copyright requirements, now these scans are online....Knowledge and information should not be the domain of a selected few so I can fully understand what Maggi refers to.