The Plant List

[Great Moravian]

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.

[Lesley Cox]

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?

[Maggi Young]

A good point Lesley... it would be a matter of some regret if forumists were to take the matter of personal comment any further.

[Great Moravian]

A perfect idea.

[gote]

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

[TheOnionMan]

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

[Great Moravian]

Only one name is of course valid

No comment ...

[Tony Willis]

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.

[Regelian]

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

[Great Moravian]

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."

[Gerry Webster]

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.

[Martin Baxendale]

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 

[Great Moravian]

Martin,
You are great.

[Maggi Young]

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 

Oh, so that is a  joke?
I thought it was just a true story......

[Gerry Webster]

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 

Oh, so that is a  joke?

So we are told.