Gurcharan ji and Vijayasankar ji, Thanks a lot for additional info. Sorry to have missed out on your names earlier. Regards, Aarti
On 11/10/10, 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 >>> >> >> >
