I wish I could see errors in my own copy as easily as I spot them in the writing of others. And I make a bundle of them.
I have a slightly different take on your account of some of the name changes we are seeing. First of all, the word Group (with the capital G) is useful because unlike the ranked taxonomic terms, it does not imply relationship by descent from a common ancestor. Crocus sativus cannot be raised from seed; all existing corms of Crocus sativus are presumed (by me at least) to have been derived from one original corm just the way most garden tulips and crocuses are propagated. When you say species which survive only in cultivation, do you mean those plants which are nominally species (i.e. species in name only) such as saffron crocus or do you mean species such as Père Davids deer, all the wild examples of which were eaten by hungry people about a century ago (luckily a few had been exported to safety)? I was not aware that the code ever restricted the use of cultivar names to vegetatively propagated plants. Did that really happen? What was done with all of the vegetables and other annuals which are propagated by seed? I think what really happened is this: seedsmen often sell seeds of named clonal cultivars under the name of the named clonal cultivar. Thats a potential source of confusion and should not be done with plants whose seed is the result of sexual reproduction. Some plants produce seeds via apomixis: the seedlings resulting from this and the parent plant form a clone. Your Phormium example is probably an example of several things. For one thing, Latin form names coined after sometime in the 1950s are not allowed. Latin form names for cultivars coined before that time are allowed. But there is also this: modern species concept has made the ranks below species (such as varietas or forma) meaningless. But since many of the plants so-designated in the past are important to horticulture, a new way of naming them was necessary. I suspect that the eschewal of the use of the words variety and form was based on the potential confusion with the taxonomic ranks varietas and forma which in English are sometimes styled variety and form. Oh, one more thing: not to nitpick, but I think it should be Narcissus Eystettensis (i.e. with single quotes and Eyst not Eysett ) Its been fun and please excuse my own typos. Jim McKenney _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GARY DUNLOP Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:18 PM To: the Electronic Rock Garden Society postings copyright byauthors.Alpine-L Subject: Re: [Alpine-l] a bit of rock garden history Jim, I wish I could proof read as easily as I can produce typos. 7 is not even adjacent to 4 on the key board. I do manage to eliminate most of the curious and random letters that appear in words that I have typed. N.Eysettensis with a capital E and with a 'y' is the current accepted designation in the Plant Finder. As it designates C.sativus with a lower-case 's', I assume that it is deemed to be a species and can be seed raised, but I have no knowledge of that.. There are a number of species that survive only in cultivation. I think the RHS botanists were behind the change in the International Code for cultivated plants which fanatically tightened up on the designation of cultivars, some years ago, by restricting cultivar names to vegetatively propagated plant. Aquilegia 'Nora Barlow' became the Nora Barlow group. A naturally occurring form of Phormium tenax with variable purple (brown) coloured foliage, previously named 'Atropurpureum' in cultivation became the Purpureum group. I'm pleased to say such silliness seems to have been abandoned as the current Plant Finder has reverted to the long established designation of cultivar names, for those that can be seed raised. I doubt many gardeners were prepared to stick 'group' on the name tag of a single plant in the garden. The tacking on 'form' or 'variety' after the original person's name who grew a particular distinct clone of a species, was also eliminated so for example Nerine bowdenii 'Fenwick's variety' became N bowdenii 'Mark Fenwick'. There were a number of other changes as well, but that is enough of a diversion for late at night. Gary Dunlop --- On Wed, 12/1/11, Jim McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: I LOVE what I can learn on this list as long as we are allowed to wander a bit. Thanks, Gary . I dont have any trouble believing that Narcissus Estettensis is four hundred year old, but seven hundred? For a clone which easily beats it in age, try Crocus sativus. Although botanists to this day carry (its the type species for the genus, so some messiness would result if changes were to be made) it as a species, it is unknown in the wild and does not match exactly any known sexually reproducing population of wild crocus. Its traditionally assumed to be derived some way from the crocus sometimes called Crocus cartwrightianus, but I think Crocus moabiticus is also a good candidate. Crocus sativus is said to be triploid. If Crocus sativus is truly clonal, its at least two and maybe three THOUSAND years old. Some grape cultivars seem to just as old.
_______________________________________________ Alpine-l mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/alpine-l
