Issue 6 of 'International Rock Gardener'

[flounder]

All,

kudos on another beautiful issue.

I could not help but notice the name change of Phyteuma to Physoplexis had been allowed for, but not the one from Dodecatheon to Primula, ref. Transfer of Dodecatheon to Primula (Primulaceae) Austin R. Mast and James L. Reveal, Brittonia, 59(1), 2007, pp. 79-82

Chris Klapwijk
Surrey, BC, Canada
Alpine Garden Club of B.C. webmaster

P.S.

my wife and I hosted Ian and Ann Christie on the western Canada leg of their North American tour, hi guys!

[Maggi Young]

Hi, Chris, Great to hear from you and I know that Ian and Ann will be  delighted too. It's good to have your first post in the Forum.

Thank you for your kind words about IRG and for bringing up this point of nomenclature.

Yes, I am the one guilty about the Dodecatheon/Primula change not being listed..... I just couldn't bring myself to do it!

I know there is a lot of annoyance from terribly up to date taxonomic types and their acolytes about folks like me who tend to complain at "yet another" name change": thinking we are old stick in the muds who should sharpen up and get with the programme but I do  feel that for many gardeners there ere is a  real resistance to these changes and, while Physoplexis does seem to be widely used now, I have yet to meet a Dodecatheon in someones garden or on a show bench that is calling itself a Primula!
Yes, there is an inconsistency;yes, there is such a change and yes, I left it out quite consciously.
I do apologise if it irritates you, however I am glad you raised the subject because I would hope it would raise comment from others who see it, also.
 For instance.....I would ask these questions.....  
How many folks do you know who are calling their "Dodes" Primulas?
 
How many members of the North Amercian Rock Garden Society would reply that their emblem was a primula, if asked ?

I'm betting darn few! If there are hundreds of you out there happily using this name change then let me know and I'll set the record straight in the next issue

I have a  feeling that not everyone knows about the change and fewer care to use the "new" name: let's see what folks say.

[ichristie]

Hi Chris, great to hear from you and I am confused with these name changes as well why do the powers that be decide these things I do not know, hope to meet up with you again sometime, cheers Ian the Christie kind.

[Maggi Young]

I forgot to say the the Alpine Club of British Columbia (http://www.agc-bc.ca/   )and their lovely emblem  will be getting a mention in the next IRG......

[cohan]

i think taxonomy can be endlessly fascinating: there is still real learning going on about genetic  and habitat relationships between taxa, and at times irritating as well: at some level, just because someone has published a set of conclusions, this is not necessarily an ultimate pronouncement which must supercede all previous thinking on the subject! it is, after all, a set of conclusions drawn by one person or group of people; another group examining the same information may draw different conclusions in the end, especially considering the artificiality of our need to separate organisms into tidy distinct taxa.. in the one genus of Haworthia, for example, there are at least 3 prominent individuals working on/publishing completely different organisations within the genus, not to mention suggestions of different relationships to several other genera..

however, what i think would be interesting and helpful is to see abstracts or discussions of some of these papers, at a length and level of complexity that would make them accessible to average gardeners; if we were able to see what some of the points are that have led someone to propose (or deny) a change, we might be able to make decisions based on something other than habit or 'preference'; i see this all the time in cactaceae taxonomy, which has been very controversial (some claim political, even!) people 'choose' to stick with old names, just because, or use the 'latest' names, because they were told to, but rarely know much about what the real issues are..i would love to see some short articles on specific genera, species etc, preferably from more than one viewpoint, regarding why they should or should not be changed...

[Maggi Young]

however, what i think would be interesting and helpful is to see abstracts or discussions of some of these papers, at a length and level of complexity that would make them accessible to average gardeners; if we were able to see what some of the points are that have led someone to propose (or deny) a change, we might be able to make decisions based on something other than habit or 'preference'; i see this all the time in cactaceae taxonomy, which has been very controversial (some claim political, even!) people 'choose' to stick with old names, just because, or use the 'latest' names, because they were told to, but rarely know much about what the real issues are..i would love to see some short articles on specific genera, species etc, preferably from more than one viewpoint, regarding why they should or should not be changed...

 That would surely be of great interest to many of us "average gardeners", Cohan: Forgive me if I am sceptical that there is much chance of getting the taxonomists to provide such accessible information to the public.
In an area where there is such an emphasis on formal publication of data/papers and an undeniable level of "competition" I fear that there would be little enthusiasm among those busy  revising nomenclature for such projects..... I would, need it be stated, be more than happy to be proved wrong!

[cohan]

however, what i think would be interesting and helpful is to see abstracts or discussions of some of these papers, at a length and level of complexity that would make them accessible to average gardeners; if we were able to see what some of the points are that have led someone to propose (or deny) a change, we might be able to make decisions based on something other than habit or 'preference'; i see this all the time in cactaceae taxonomy, which has been very controversial (some claim political, even!) people 'choose' to stick with old names, just because, or use the 'latest' names, because they were told to, but rarely know much about what the real issues are..i would love to see some short articles on specific genera, species etc, preferably from more than one viewpoint, regarding why they should or should not be changed...

 That would surely be of great interest to many of us "average gardeners", Cohan: Forgive me if I am sceptical that there is much chance of getting the taxonomists to provide such accessible information to the public.
In an area where there is such an emphasis on formal publication of data/papers and an undeniable level of "competition" I fear that there would be little enthusiasm among those busy  revising nomenclature for such projects..... I would, need it be stated, be more than happy to be proved wrong!

i'm sure you are right, maggi! what might be possible is for amateurs with access to some already published papers to provide synopses...and/or some generous authors to post papers online..i agree its not likely to happen too often, but i have seen a few over the years, so hope springs eternal!

[Lesley Cox]

I agree with all your above comments Maggi and while I can repect the work done by taxonomists, I don't think those people can object if the general gardening public (95% of whom don't give a damn anyway, about names and would be hard pressed to know a verbena from a viola) take not a blind bit of notice when Dodecatheon is placed within Primula. As far as I'm aware it has never been the object of any taxonomist to inform the public in any meaningful way; rather it is their object to carry out an academic exercise in respect of certain plants. They may or may not have science on their side but common sense and common knowledge guide our lives and experience, not (sometimes very obscure) science.

Sometime back in the last half of the last century, there was a note from, I think, Chris Brickell that the International .... (you know, those who make the nomenclature rules), had decided that allowance should be made in some circumstances for common usage where the plant concerned was well established over a very long time, with one name, even if recent work had decided to give it a different name. So, taxonomists or the Plantfinder aside, I shall continue to grow dodecatheons and primulas - separately.

[David Nicholson]

............So, taxonomists or the Plantfinder aside, I shall continue to grow dodecatheons and primulas - separately.

Me too.

[Lvandelft]

When reading the last, very informative again, IRG I wanted to open and download this and the other issues to read them whenever I am not on-line. (Used Mozilla Firefox)
Everything went o.k., but the February issue just opened and loaded till about 700 Kb and then stopped. The other issues gave no problems.
Had to restart and tried several times again. Did not work!!
When writing these lines I realized that I maybe should try to do it with Micr. Int. Expl.  
Guess what…. now it worked

[Maggi Young]

How strange, Luit.... such technicalities are a mystery to me, I must say.   
I am pleased that you  have now been able to download the IRGs to read at leisure.

 I use Mozilla Firefox for my internet activity nowadays and only occasionally find any problems with it.

[Lvandelft]

 I use Mozilla Firefox for my internet activity nowadays and only occasionally find any problems with it.

So I do Maggi! This is the first time I have a problem, I believe. Very strange!!

[Lvandelft]

Dodecatheon is since very many years one of my favourite plants.
I possess an old picture from 1757 of Meadia.
Meadia has been the name for Dodecatheon only a few years. Called after Dr. Richard Mead, who was the personal physician of King George II

http://chestofbooks.com/gardening-horticulture/Cyclopedia-2/Dodecatheon.html

http://www.harrold.info/about/mead.html

So I shall continue to grow dodecatheons and primulas separately too!

Here a picture of Meadia:

[Ragged Robin]

Finally I have had time to download and look at the latest issue and it really was compulsive reading from beginning to end.  The Alpine flower emblems and the countries and societies they are adopted by make a fascinating insight and the photography of the plants in situ is always so uplifting - thanks to Cliff, Ian Y, Ian McE, Cohan, Diane C, Geir, Franz H, Thomas H, Harry J, Todd & Kristi.

Alpine plants truly link us internationally and it is wonderful to see the how the features and characteristics of each plant change from country to country just as the people do.....through all the diversity we have common ground that binds us, expressed so well by Members from everywhere around the globe, it seems, in our Fabulous Forum.  Thanks to all who have contributed to this issue.

[TheOnionMan]

Regarding adoption of Dodecatheon as Primula, or maintaining Dodecatheon and Primula as separate, let's also throw in Douglasia and Androsace of the Primulaceae into the discussion, a similar issue.  When such changes get published (Dodecatheon consumed by Primula), that act is not unto itself the last word, one needs to sit back and watch other governing bodies, to judge consensus, and see what their take is on the adoption of such changes, and whether subsequent to such changes, how are the changes addressed in new taxonomic works.  We have a classic example before us, with the recently published (and ongoing, yet to be completed) online Flora of North America (FONA).  I find the discussion in FONA for both Dodecatheon and Douglasia to be most illuminating.  I was hoping to garner some discussion about this in the Primula 2010 thread, but none was forthcoming; see that thread for pertinent links:

http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=4976.msg159173#msg159173