Some Asters had a name change

It seems back a few years ago, the Asters that are native to North America were changed to a different genus. Most of them are now listed as Symphyotrichum. This includes the New England (Aster novae-angliae), New York (novi-belgii), Smooth aster (A. laevis), and several others.

(I was disappointed to make this discovery; Symphyotrichum doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as easily as Aster!)

I have no idea why it took us this long to realize the change had occurred, but I went through today and updated all the Aster entries affected. Just a word to the wise - be sure to double-check any new Aster entries for synonyms. If you need help adding the synonyms just holler!

Go_Vols, the last I heard ('02) is that this is still in dispute; several nations are putting up an argument against the change. Stand ready to change it back. Of course, they may stand firm. Who knows? Remember the uproar about 'Chrysanthemum'?

Kathy, the only nations involved would be Canada, U.S. and Mexico, right? (It seems the majority of plants affected are localized to the eastern half of the U.S.) I'd be curious to hear why a country outside this continent would dispute the change...

The USDA database has changed all of its entries to reflect the new name, and following the USDA's lead, our entries have all been updated to reflect the change. Although a search for "Aster" will still get you the same results, since each has their former name listed as a synonym.

Re the Chrysanthemum issue...to be honest, I wasn't attuned to taxonomy issues when it occurred, so I don't personally recall the dispute. But I have seen bits and pieces of the aftermath, scattered around the world-wide web ;0)

Perhaps there is a move to make taxonomy a little less complicated? OK I'll grab a strong coffee and wake up in a minute.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! Then what would taxonomists do with all their free time???? (giggle, snort, guffaw...)

(Somedays I think my funny bone has been replaced by a cynical bone. Well, whatever I've got, that comment hit it pretty hard.)

It's all that trawling through sources to find a plant and then to find it's had so many name changes no one knows what to call it any more.

The taxonomists have plenty of work sorting out the mess they've left us with, then they can send out botanists to discover more plants to name and for us to grow. Hmmm maybe not that sounds too much like a vicious circle.

This message was edited Thursday, Jan 23rd 4:38 PM

No wonder we're all so light-headed.

Terry, aren't you glad you don't have to do all the plant editing on the whole Internet???

It was due, in part, to the Chrysanthemum mess that the Aster change isn't fully accepted yet. Too many people got too upset about that one. For once the taxonomists had to give in, and they didn't appreciate it one little bit. I only saw what happened on the outer fringes; thankfully I am not a taxonomist, just an amateur horticulturalist (gardener :) who struggles to find my favorite plants to grow, whatever they are called!

I have really been restraining myself to not include all the former plant names in with the Synonyms. In some cases, I have found 10-15 previous names. Most are just spelling variations, but a few have really been way out in left field. Those are easy: ignore them because the writer is ignorant. Pitch the book. Go on.

Vols

"I'd be curious to hear why a country outside this continent would dispute the change... "

I knew I'd forgotten something.

Reason why we all like to stick fingers in others' taxonomical pies is because all names in all the bot systems have to conform to the current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. If a name doesn't conform to the rules (insomniac cure if ever there was one), everyone else gets a burr in the bit to keep it within the rules. Hence the endless problems we have with botanical nomenclature ... too many maverick taxonomists.

This message was edited Saturday, Jan 25th 4:07 PM

One of the least-favorite rules is about primary citation. As antiques become more prized, people are searching and finding very old publications that originally listed a plant to be named thus-and-so. It trumps the new just-agreed-on name, and we all go back to square one...

There are underground rumblings here in the Horticulture world (mostly at the University level) that they are going to split off from the Botanical world altogether over some of these arguments. Hope that never happens, but the arguments become very bitter sometimes...

To be honest Lupine part of the problem is the amount of 18th to 20th century botanists that went out pioneering and findng all these wonderful plants. They made up oodles of names and wrote their reports for submission and registry. Many of these records were mislaid, hidden in a collectors library, lost in fire/burglary/war etc.

Turns out that some of them thar hills were crawling with botanist/plant (read fortune in many cases) hunters and they were all giving different names to the same plants!

The idea is that the plants proper name is the one found in the earliest literature. These old and lost reports turn up to give us all a big headache, sometimes there is just a day or two inbetween Mr Soandso naming a particular plant species and Mr Wosisname.

The earliest name in literature that conforms to the rules of the current ICBN and has the descriptions written in the prescribed manner wins the name game. So in effect they aren't really new names, just names lost in usage or that were only used by the one person who managed to 'discover' it first.

Why the horts want this split is beyond me, it will just create far more confusion for those of us at the bottom of the food chain.

So how does the DNA evidence stack up against the argument to preserve the old (oldest) name? As far as I can tell, that's what is at the heart of this specific name change; I understood that DNA would win out over preservation - am I operating under a false assumption?

(I know what you mean about the ICBN being a sure-fire cure for insomnia - I've often nodded off while trying to decipher their information.)

This message was edited Saturday, Jan 25th 6:14 PM

The DNA is at the heart of the split. Should it be accepted? Not? You can guess who is on which side. Baa, I am surprised rumblings haven't spread over to your side yet. It is a HUGE issue here, but still "underground", that is, the general public hasn't been told.

I hope we will never be called on to take sides; that is the last thing we all need.

Go_Vols, if you have friends associated with any of your local Universities, do you hear the grumblings? I do my best to avoid controversy, but with friends on both sides of this issue, it is hard to remain ignorant of it. I can, at least, refuse to take part.

Just a "heads up" that it is in the air. Maybe if enough of us refuse to take sides in the mutiny it will fizzle out, and we'll all be one big happy family again.

I'm glad I had an afternoon nap!

The whys and wherefores of this specific case are unknown to me but I was speaking (typing) generally as to why other countries have an interest in the re-naming of various classes.

Of course that is assuming that the classification systems are being brought under one umbrella (cough cough, where's that coffee?).

DNA classification is bringing up some genera/families that were mis-identified but it is also verifying much of the previous work done under morphology and other class systems used. The whole genera/familial and other class names are simply names, DNA classification will verify if a particular species needs to be moved into another family or genus. The names of the genera they are moved to will probably remain under that 'general' (oldest wins) rule. Like with everything there are always exceptions.

As for Symphytotricum, I thought it was an older name for the species now considered to be in the genus.

Kathy, I've elevated fence-sitting to an art form. I even have specially designed pants that keep me from getting too many splinters from perching long-term up here.

Quite seriously, I can see both sides of the argument, but I can also look at it from a very philosophical perspective and shrug my shoulders. IMO, we're running around attempting to catalog things that God never intended for us to competely understand so there isn't a clear-cut "right" answer or position.

In answer to your question, we don't have a large/strong horticultural presence here in middle TN. (MTSU has an ag program, but it's more focused on agronomy and land management than matters of horticulture and taxonomy.) If I lived in near UT in Knoxville I'd probably have more interaction with the university crowd, and THEY would be more likely to have a strong opinion on the matter. I get to live in blissful ignorance except when I stub my toe on things like Asters :)

If anyone is out there reading this and is wondering what on earth is going on ... you're not the only ones! You can include me in that catagory too.