By the way I rechecked, Cucumis 002 which i sent was published on April 2007!!
Renner, S.S., H. Schaefer and A. Kocyan. 2007. Phylogenetics of Cucumis (Cucurbitaceae): Cucumber (C. sativus) belongs in an Asian/Australian clade far from melon (C. melo). BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7: 58 - 69. Pankaj On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> wrote: > Again many thanks: Pankaj, Gurcharan ji and Vijayasankar ji. > Regards. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Ok Vijay, as you say!! >> Regards >> Pankaj >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Vijayasankar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Very interesting discussion. >> > Change of names in this group has become constant! >> > But, I think Schaefer has finally come up with a solution for the >> > confusion >> > in the nomenclature by merging the closely allied 'genera', though he >> > has >> > added few more new names in addition to the existing list. But, GRIN >> > seem to >> > have updated the nomenclature based on some ref. (on 26 June >> > 2007) before >> > publication of Schaefer's paper (published on 4 July 2007). >> > >> > Anyway, we should be aware that Cucumis ritchei is not our Cucumella >> > ritchei >> > which is now Cucumis indicus!! >> > And from now we will call Mukia maderaspata as Cucumis maderaspatanus. >> > Thanks Pankaj for the references. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Vijayasankar >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Our last mails overlapped ... !!! >> >> Many thanks once again for digging deeper !!! >> >> >> >> Hopefully friends pursuing Mukia and Cucumis will resolve this >> >> confusion. >> >> >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> No sir, its not because of popularity in this case. On the basis of >> >>> popularity a wrong name can be accepted like they do for Orchidaceae. >> >>> Like Orchidaceae described my Jussieu is accepted though the one >> >>> described by Adanson was older. Former name (Orchidaceae Juss.) was >> >>> conserved. >> >>> >> >>> Here the main reason given is the genetic makeup of the taxa which is >> >>> given in the three references I provided in my last mail. On the basis >> >>> of popularity it could have been done, but merging 5 different genera >> >>> into one is a big deal!! >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> Pankaj >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Dinesh Valke >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Many thanks Pankaj for your clarifications ... yet hoping we get to >> >>> > know of >> >>> > facts. >> >>> > >> >>> > Mukia maderaspatana is a very popular name ... it is found in many >> >>> > literature (old non-botanic)... on the contrary, Cucumis >> >>> > maderaspatanus >> >>> > is >> >>> > lesser found. >> >>> > >> >>> > From the two references, GRIN and IPNI, whatever status they show of >> >>> > this >> >>> > species currently ... thoughts coming to my mind: ... for some >> >>> > reason, >> >>> > Cucumis maderaspatanus gains currency somewhere in the recent past >> >>> > (justifying GRIN's effort of stating it) ... for some reason, the >> >>> > old >> >>> > popular name regains its status and becomes the accepted name (as >> >>> > per >> >>> > your >> >>> > clarifications). >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Regards. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Gurcharan Singh >> >>> > <[email protected]> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks a lot for the information, Pankaj ji >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> Dr. Gurcharan Singh >> >>> >> Retired Associate Professor >> >>> >> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 >> >>> >> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. >> >>> >> Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089 >> >>> >> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pankaj Kumar >> >>> >> <[email protected]> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> There was a project undertaken by Natural History Museum London, >> >>> >>> called, The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project. Headed by >> >>> >>> Dr. >> >>> >>> Charles Jarvis a very senior taxonomist, who happens to be on my >> >>> >>> friend list. They came out with a book called, "Order Out of >> >>> >>> Chaos: >> >>> >>> Linnaean Plant Names and Their Types". In this he provided >> >>> >>> information >> >>> >>> on the status of Type Specimens of Linnaeus and of those he >> >>> >>> referred >> >>> >>> and the species what he had described. The books gives the details >> >>> >>> of >> >>> >>> type and lectotypes of all the taxa described by Linnaeus along >> >>> >>> with >> >>> >>> their currently accepted names. According to the book, the >> >>> >>> currently >> >>> >>> accepted name is Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.Roem.. The book was >> >>> >>> released in 2007 and I am yet to have a copy of it :(. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> IPNI does provide the synonyms as well as basionyms and in this >> >>> >>> particular taxa, it claims Cucumis as basionym. If you check the >> >>> >>> record history of the taxa then there are editings done by >> >>> >>> "BARKER". >> >>> >>> I >> >>> >>> know Dr. Tina Barker at IPNI personally, so I may ask her, but as >> >>> >>> the >> >>> >>> site claims, most probably, her answer will be same. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Even JSTOR accepts Mukia as accepted name. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> http://plants.jstor.org/flora/ftea001827 (I am not sure if you can >> >>> >>> open this link, I can because I am a member of it). >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Note that GRIN database claims that it was last updated in 2008, >> >>> >>> but >> >>> >>> updation there may not mean updation in the synonymy but also any >> >>> >>> other information on the webpage of particular species, that may >> >>> >>> include other references. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> IPNI may be wrong, and so can be GRIN, but I trust Dr. Charles >> >>> >>> Jarvis >> >>> >>> and >> >>> >>> JSTOR. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I am not forcing my point here. I am giving my reference and you >> >>> >>> are >> >>> >>> giving yours. We just need to check who is correct. Both have our >> >>> >>> references to support our views. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Regards >> >>> >>> Pankaj >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> -- >> >>> >>> *********************************************** >> >>> >>> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> >>> >>> Research Associate >> >>> >>> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> >>> >>> Department of Habitat Ecology >> >>> >>> Wildlife Institute of India >> >>> >>> Post Box # 18 >> >>> >>> Dehradun - 248001, India >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> *********************************************** >> >>> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> >>> Research Associate >> >>> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> >>> Department of Habitat Ecology >> >>> Wildlife Institute of India >> >>> Post Box # 18 >> >>> Dehradun - 248001, India >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> *********************************************** >> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >> >> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> Research Associate >> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> Department of Habitat Ecology >> Wildlife Institute of India >> Post Box # 18 >> Dehradun - 248001, India > > -- *********************************************** "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) Research Associate Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project Department of Habitat Ecology Wildlife Institute of India Post Box # 18 Dehradun - 248001, India
