purpleinopp said:
Until geneticists involved themselves in binomial nomenclature of plants, AFAIK, they were only renamed if it was discovered that a same plant had been given more than 1 name. (Someone visiting a location in April, for example, would see plants in a quite different state than someone who visits in September.) So this has happened with many plants over the past 260 years, since Linnaeus invented his system. The name first published is given the status of preferred, with any names published later called synonyms. But! This isn't renaming a plant. It's reconciling a same plant with 2 names, one of which it was given by accident. Since a name works best if it is unique and stable, this is a necessary, positive, helpful, *good* thing to do.
purpleinopp said:
Since a name works best if it is unique and stable, this is a necessary, positive, helpful, *good* thing to do.
purpleinopp said:
A name need only be unique and stable, to serve its' purpose. Once we know what a plant is, (which can only be done by giving it a name that no other plant has, that others also use to indicate that particular plant,) any particular knowledge sought about it can be reliably attached to the name. Many botanical epithets translate into someone's name, a color, an aspect of the plant such as fuzzy, reference to leaf shape. The notion of connecting genetics to binomial nomenclature is new, and the implications of doing it are not taken seriously enough, IMVHO/E.
There seems to be no stopping the idea that binomial nomenclature must somehow indicate some kind of genetic info, and/or be 'genetically correct,' so I hope whatever changes are made are indeed correct. I don't see any reason to connect the specific info called genetics to a plant name, and don't consider such renaming of plants to be progress (which implies a change for the *better*.)
« Return to the thread "Perilla or Coleus?"
« Return to Plant Database forum
« Return to the Garden.org homepage