Hypothetical Revision of the Genus Aquilegia

[TheOnionMan]

[reprint from an Alpine-L post]

The genus Aquilegia has been subject to a drastic revision, with many species spinning off to new genera.  Let me summarize key changes, including recent taxonomic updates

Revision of the Genus Aquilegia - Highlights

All red-flowered "Columbines" east of the Mississippi have been reduced to a new monotypic genus Canadensuilegia canadensis.

All red-flowered "Columbines" west of the Mississippi have been reduced to a new monotypic genus Elegantuilegia elegantula.

Demiaquilegia becomes the new genus holding all of the dwarf European species (bertolonii, discolor, etc.)

Hemiaquilegia becomes the new genus holding any species with flowers half-hidden within the foliage (laramiensis) or with hemispherical flowers (fragrans).

The pre-existing genus Semiaquilegia becomes Quasiaquilegia, to make room for Semiaquilegia caerulea (the new name for A. caerulea), named thus because it grows halfway between the east and west coasts of the USA.

Aquilegia jonesii must now be called Nanaquilegia jonesiaquilegia, a monotypic genus native to the Northern Rockies.

All dwarf Japanese species with glaucous foliage and blue flowers are now within the new genus Flabellaquilegia.

All dwarf Japanese species with glaucous foliage and white flowers are now within the new genus Flabellalbaquilegia.

Any "Aquilegia" grown from garden collected seed is assigned to the new genus Hortaquilegia.

All common European columbines are now within the new genus Vulgaquilegia.

Aquilegia itself becomes a monotypic genus, holding only a single species. Previously known as A. vulgaris, the new name by which the single Aquilegia species must be called is Aquilegia pseudoaquilegioides. A subspecies that seeds around too much has been proposed as "ssp. vulgaris".

All new Aquilegia species named heretofore shall be within the new genus Postaquilegia.

The genus Paraquilegia is considered null and void, and synonymous with Duplaquilegia 'Nora Barlow' (syn. Malaquilegia).

A new-to-science species was found in Wasilla Alaska, it is known as Saraquilegia palinii.  It is reputedly very difficult to grow and quits growing half way through the season.  Regardless of its non-flowering, the plant pops up all over the place.

The mysterious Aquilegia kuhistanica & all other nursery-conjured species become Phantasmaquilegia stanica-stanica.

This revision takes precedence over all other Aquilegia taxonomic treatments.

 

[ranunculus]

... BUT HOW LONG BEFORE YOUR EFFORTS ARE BEING QUOTED IN LEGITIMATE LISTINGS, MARK???   

[TheOnionMan]

... BUT HOW LONG BEFORE YOUR EFFORTS ARE BEING QUOTED IN LEGITIMATE LISTINGS, MARK???   

Well, I submitted these changes to IPNI, The Plant List, Kew, and others but they just won't pay any attention to me.

[mark smyth]

how are we gonna remember all those new names?

[annew]

You had me going for a while there...

[Rafa]

http://www.floraiberica.es/floraiberica/texto/pdfs/01_036_20_Aquilegia.pdf
This is the last work concerning this genus of our spanish flora.


 Edit by Maggi: this is not a joke, this is the current Flora Iberica treatment!

This useful link reposted here :
http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=6470.0

[TheOnionMan]

http://www.floraiberica.es/floraiberica/texto/pdfs/01_036_20_Aquilegia.pdf
This is the last work concerning this genus of our spanish flora.

Rafa, that's a great link, with super fine quality line drawings.  Since my posting on "a revision of the genus aquilegia" is basically a spoof or joke, you might want to repost your link to one of the other serious Aquilegia topics going on, or maybe even a new topic called something like Aquilegia in FloraIberica.  It would be a shame if this link is not noticed among the joking context of this topic.  Thanks again for sharing this most excellent link.

[Paul T]

McMark,

Can I respectfully submit an addition to the latest revision?...

Anything that doesn't quite fit into any of the species listed within the revision is placed into the "catch all" Mightbeaquilegia notsureii, subject to proper evaluation and placement within the revisions guidelines.  If the correct placement in the revision cannot be found, after exhaustive research of course, they will be placed into the sister species Mightbeaquilegia unknownii.

All other plants known (or unknown) to exist that do not fit within this revision will heretofore by placed into the genus Notaquilegia as their existing names really have no meaning as they aren't related to anything that was, will, or might even have been known as Aquilegia, and therefore their names obviously have no relevance to anyone anyway.

That should about cover it!!  

[Maggi Young]

test

[Lesley Cox]

Paul/Mark, you didn't account for all those plants which should now be known as couldhavebeenaquilegia or neverwereanaquilegia of couldn'tpossiblybeanaquilegia. There are even more, if we look carefully. Personally, I'm going to spend the day relabelling all the ramondas, primulas, saxes, gentians and others I've recently planted in troughs. The main problem is finding labels long enough.

[Paul T]

Lesley,

All you need for names for them is Notaquilegia.  I thought I'd made that obvious.    Why would you need large labels for them.     No need to bother with all those other pesky bits of names, as they're definitely no longer needed.

[annew]

Heads up, folks - after all the revision, Maggi's now going to test us.

[Lesley Cox]

Paul, I was just making an obviously pathetic attempt to carry on Marks' little bit of delightful craziness. I shan't make that mistake again.

[Great Moravian]

McMark,
You forgot of Narcissaquilegia flavescens.
http://www.portlandnursery.com/plants/images/aquilegia/native/Aquilegia_flavescens_15235.JPG

[TheOnionMan]

McMark,
You forgot of Narcissaquilegia flavescens.
http://www.portlandnursery.com/plants/images/aquilegia/native/Aquilegia_flavescens_15235.JPG

Josef, the flowers on that one do indeed look Narcissus-like.   This might throw off my whole Aquilegia Revision... wait a minute, I've got it, there shall be a new genus for Aquilegia-related taxa that selfishly want to become the "gold standard" among Aquilegia by which all other species are clearly subordinate, thus can remain at the self-important new genus Narcissaquilegia ... excellent!