Plant Names

G'Day
Below is a letter that I posted in the Cactus & Succulent Forum but the topic lapsed, I feel because of a bit of a Kerfuffle over what was considered personal comments. Some might like to check the postings in the C&S forum under the same name as above. I am aware that the same problems exist in most if not all plant naming and I am particularly aware of the problems with renaming Australian Native Plants.
This is the opening posting in that thread.
G'Day All
I am wondering if other members are having the same trouble as I am?
I learnt the names of some cacti many years ago and when I became re-interested I managed to get the current "Bible" of cacti by Edward F Anderson. His "lumping" causes problems because I have a picture in my mind on what some genera should look like. I mean Echinopsis are either ball or very short columnal, Trichocereus are columnal and quite tall etc. I think you will know what I mean and it applies to lot of other genera. So now we have to identify an unknown (to us) plant and we find that the identifying features are so broad that almost any thing fits. I'm referring to things like "spines long, short or absent" "Ribs 4 to 24 sometimes more" "Plant tall, short, fat, skinny sometimes branching". As if this isn't bad enough I have found some species are completely opposite of the description given in an older authority like J. Borg.
I believe that a name is given to any object (or person for that matter) so that it can be easily identified amongst interested people. If one needs DNA testing then it defeats the purpose of a name because very few people can carry out DNA tests and no person can do a field identification based on DNA. So what is the purpose of this? Is it so some "clever" person can prove they know more than their predecessors or is it to show us, the ignorant masses that we should not have our noses in their business.
I believe that if I can see that a plant is consistently different and it reproduces truely from seed it is different. I think that if the differences cannot be seen using a hand lense at the most then there are no differences. Different coloured flowers (in the wild) do not generally reproduce truely so flower colour is not an identifying feature at the species level but can be and is used at a CV level and then the plant bears an added name.
As you might gather I'm finding it very frustrating to find that an old well known genus or species has been altered but then when trying to re-identify one finds it almost immpossible because of the afore mentioned broad and meaningless identifying features.
I hope this starts a very strong disscussion and I wonder where some of our very knowledgeable members stand.
Photo is one of the plants causing frustrations
After spilling the fat on the fire I will not hide behind the member name.
Regards Brian Staker

G'Day
Below is my reply to criticism of the supposed use of common names and it was suggested that perhaps this forum was a better place for the discussion. So I'm giving it a try. All comments welcome.
Brian
G'Day, Gee I think the comments re common names is a bit rough. It seems to me that what was used are cultivar names and the Xs are crosses. The comment re latin names does not hold up because of the continuing changing of the botanical names. I think there is just as much confusion if not more with the botanical names as there is with common names and although common names vary from region to region at least with in the region they are constant for generation after generation. Even the botanist don't always know what is being referred to because the name they know has been replaced with another which might be a new name or reversion to an old name because an earlier change is deemed to be wrong.
Now you had better share those pills to calm me down.
Regards Brian

I agree with the difficulty in keeping up the race for renames. Enough already.

Folks that find reasons to rename a plant (older or newer) should be required to always write out in long-hand not only the new name by which it shall forevermore be known, but to have to append to it that formerly standard name by which everyone else learned it, knew it, and was comfortable with.

That way, we all still know what plant is being referred to, and eventually we might get used to the new name. Then we'll say so, and the appendages can be dropped.

I say: just at least spell it right. Everybody's computer has spell check, and you can get the add-on for botanical terms.

After a lot of thinking I've come to the conclusion that we need two recognised naming systems. One for plant lovers/gardeners that rarely changes and one for Botanists that can take into account new scientific findings.
The plant lover/gardener name needs to be based on botanical names but distinct differences in the form of a plant in the wild will require a different name. By this I mean where a botanists' species can have within it a tree form, shrub form, procumbent form and prostrate form, the new naming system would require that they be different species (although it might be decided that this system won't use the word species). If there are variations that occur across a genus then those variations if selected out will be noted by a CV name. By this I mean things like flower colour or variations in leave shape or colour. To a degree this is already done with plants like roses, where the identifying feature is the CV name, like Peace, the gardener doesn't have to be told that the plant he/she is looking at is Rosa X Hybrid Tea it is a Rose CV Peace. Some might like to know it is a Hybrid Tea but the few who want to know more of the parentage can then start looking at the Botanists' classification.
Does anyone think that this system could be set up by using the knowledge of some of the worlds best gardeners who can if they think it neccessary consult with Botanists but Botanists will not be allowed to dominate the group.
The photo is Eucalyptus ficifolia any one can see it is a Eucalypt but it's not now it's a Corybia but after about 10 years it might not be it might be changed back to Eucalyptus. Bah & Double Bah.
Regards Brian

G'Day
Come on folks have your say on the contentious issue of plant naming, or more precisely the continuing problem of plant name changing.
Also there is a request for info on the Plant Name Spell Checker can anyone help with that?
Regards Brian

This message was edited Feb 18, 2009 1:31 AM

Bump

There IS already a parallel naming system which is the colloquial names of plants such as apple tree or jumping cholla. Granted, lots of plants do not have colloquial names because no one grows them and only scientists know about them.

What you seem to advocate for is to have a third naming system, something quasi-sientific, based more on looks than genetics, not following the advancements in botanical science. Who would create such a system? What kind of authority would that person have? What wold be the basis of the naming system? Who would pay the person(s) creating the system and why?

G'Day Nomosno. I did suggest up higher who the people could be, but we would have to first establish that Plant Lovers/ Gardeners (not neccessarily Botanists)wanted the system. I agree with you about the common names existing but they vary from place to place, country to country. I could see no wrong with the original botanical naming it is just that it is now so confused that even botanists cannot keep upto date with the name changes. It is the changes that cause the confusion not the use of botanical names as such.
Thanks for your input and I hope you will ponder on the possibility of a system with less confusion.
Brian

well, maybe you know more about the science of botanics than the average person but for someone like me a page like this http://www.cactiguide.com/cactus/?genus=Parodia&species=sellowii or this http://www.cactiguide.com/cactus/?genus=Parodia&species=sellowii is shocking to behold. Actually, the second link gives some explanation to the first link: it seems that every time someone publishes an article about a plant he/she feels the urge to rename it and sometimes the name sticks, sometimes it does not.

It would behoove the scientific community to keep the plantophile masses happy with a practically usable naming system but they don't seem to care about us in their Diospyros ebenum towers

G'Day Nomosno. Your links illustrate beautifully the reason for my gripes. How anyone can claim that the mess illustrated is to clarify issues in the plant world has me baffled. My original posting was about cacti naming and that is likely one of the worst Families because of the large number represented but it is by no means the only Family that has the problem of confusion. With the widely grown plants, where the important thing to the gardener is the CV or variety. Like say Potato this name plus cultivar is all that is needed by most people and as far as I know is consistent in the English speaking world. The few that need the botanical name can easily find it in common references.
So the my question is "Why can't we have the same for all plants?"
Some plants are already known by their generic name i.e. Dahlia in these cases this would be retained and if in the future someone decides they are not Dahlia the botanical name might change but the Gardeners' name wouldn't, that plant type will be Dahlia for as long as Plant Lovers want it to be.
My thought on who would pay for this is that volunteers over a very long time would do the work at no cost or if the support was great enough then funds sought from plant organisations and if the support was overwhelming then perhaps we could have a Dept of Plant Names funded by Governments. After all I'm sure we all have ideas on less useful bodies that receive funding.
Photo is my Parodia ottonis that thinks it is a Notocactus ottonis
Regards Brian