Use Of Specific Epithets

[bench72]

Ok, so you want to put Dracula, Dryadella back into Masdevallia?

I am afraid that I don't see why this could possibly clarify things?

I think, we're looking at different results. You want to clarify things eg. relationships between plants, and I just want to ensure that the species name remain stable. If it means lumping them back into Masdevallia, then so be it.

Maybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:

There is no "increasing basionym" please explain what you mean.

basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?

so, if

Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes?

If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No?

Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species.

OK ... so we delete all the street names. Now you have NewYork 2765, New York 3777, Chicago 2666. Or maybe we should do away with the city names as well, USA 56677, Europe 17835 ... Great system, makes it much clearer.

ok, street names = specific epithet, and we haven't quite done away with it.

So, let's say all street names from now on will be numbers and every new street will have the a new number.

Braem street is now 7. And it is in the USA. so, if I say USA 7, people will know that I am talking of (or what once was) Braem Street, USA. In the future, it will be simply known as USA 7.

Of course, the census may want to have different levels which designate, suburb, city, state. Changing population means that a suburb is burgeoning and needs to be split. Currently, the suburb of Braem where USA 7 (aka Braem St is) is getting too big and needs to be split. So, they split the suburb into Guido and Braem and now USA 7 is in Guido. At the end of the day, it is still known as USA 7.

If you have "New York 77567" who tells you that there is not someone going to come and change the numbers around.?

and here I concede, because if it would be as easy to change the system as I have suggested, then it would be just as easy for someone else to change it tomorrow.

Nope, and it has been said many times before that you can't use a family as a genus

But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out.

I hope you know that what you say would mean that all of us would have a molecular lab at home. And who tells you that the molecular techniques don't evolve.

You misunderstood the my point. The point was that as more research is done (however this is done, whether subatomic technology or whatever) the relationships of plants will be better understood. This relationship may lead to a plant being moved from one genus to another, but it’s name should remain the same.

which one? Or is there only one kind? .... Just think about beer and you will understand how taxonomy works and why it is needed (also applies to wine by the way)

this is a terrible analogy, if I may say so myself, so I’ll respond with an equally terrible one…

If I buy a Foster’s Lager today, and tomorrow I go to pub # 2 at USA 7, I can still ask for a Foster’s Lager. The beer hasn’t changed it’s name.

 

[Braem]

Yes, but you see. The Foster's Lager is a species. And the species is well defined and has no variation. Therefore, there is no trouble finding it in any shop or anytime.

But true (taxonomist) life is not that way, a awful lot of plant species are NOT well-defined and MOST are variable, some even, very much so (just remember the besseae/dalessandroi deal).

Now, if we would have a system to define the species as well as the Foster's Lager or Sam Adams Octoberfest (I get a shock everytime I write Octoberfest wit a "c"), we would have solved a very, very big problem.

Moral of the story: beer taxonomy is easy, and hey, I am going to use that in class. The other good way to explain taxonomy is languages (but unfortunately, not too many people speak several languages). I think the beer deal is easier.

Guido
On second thought, I can think of a way in which I can include variation into my beer model. ... Got it!

 

[Mahon]

I think, we're looking at different results. You want to clarify things eg. relationships between plants, and I just want to ensure that the species name remain stable. If it means lumping them back into Masdevallia, then so be it.

I think the major part of classification is determining relationships between genera and the status of each species in a genus. There are so many ways of attacking this, that we have our own little classification system on the taxonomists!

What I see here is that you have no evidence to support your idea for your "supergenus" concept. You have an affinity towards lumping, yet without any evidence. You suggest moving all the segregate Masdevallia genera back into Masdevallia. This is crazy! If you see all the Masdevallia segregate genera in person, you would have a completely different story. Not only is there valid evidence that these genera remain segregated, but all of the conflicting specific epithets between these genera will cause even more confusion. This is why I originally stated the first step is to limit specific epithets. The "supergenus" concept is insane in itself, but you have to take steps that would even allow such a treatment. The first is fixing repetitous specific epithets, then setting a guideline to limit the epithet use in a certain nomenclatural level.

Maybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:

Why change a good working concept? A binomial (genus + species) is a very good concept. You will not clarify anything if you specify what family you are discussing in the binomial. In that case, your binomial generic epithet (Orchidaceae) and specific epithet will have to treat about 20,000+ species. That means 20,000+ more original specific epithets would have to be given. You just complicated the entire family Orchidaceae, and defeated your entire purpose (which is to "keep the species name stable") by using Orchidaceae in place of the generic epithet in a binomial.

Now, according to your system, not only do we have orchids, but we have orchids. What kind of orchids do you grow? I grow orchid orchids. It's repititous, we know we have orchids, that's why we have binomials with generic and specific epithets. That's why the beginning starts with broad Orchidaceae, and narrows down to a specific species, and does not go back up to Orchidaceae for any reason.

basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?

so, if

Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes?

If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No?

Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species.

I am pretty sure you are relating to here is; 'Nomenclatural Synonyms'.

Braem street is now 7. And it is in the USA. so, if I say USA 7, people will know that I am talking of (or what once was) Braem Street, USA. In the future, it will be simply known as USA 7.

That is only if someone would want to (or could) remember a single street among millions of other streets. USA is WAY to broad, you just stated the obvious by saying a street in the USA is in the USA. Unless you were confusing Canada (Gesneriads) with the USA (Orchids), in which the person in Canada (gesneriad classification) wouldn't care what was going on in the USA (orchid classification), they just know you are the USA (orchids), regardless of what goes on in the USA (how we classify orchids).

Of course, the census may want to have different levels which designate, suburb, city, state. Changing population means that a suburb is burgeoning and needs to be split. Currently, the suburb of Braem where USA 7 (aka Braem St is) is getting too big and needs to be split. So, they split the suburb into Guido and Braem and now USA 7 is in Guido. At the end of the day, it is still known as USA 7.

This is not how taxonomy works. Just because a genus becomes too big, we don't split them into other genera for that reason. Instead, for the ease of locating taxa, we will sub-divide the genus, into 'Subgenera'. These are groups of species in which share similar characteristics among other species, yet still meet the requirment of staying in that genus. If the species does not meet the requirement (designated by a type species for the genus), then it gets segregated or transferred.

Again, the concept for having the family as the generic epithet would not simplify anything. Here is an analogy (I see we like them alot here):

This is an orchid forum (Family Orchidaceae). This forum isn't as broad as orchids, it is geared towards slipper orchids (Subfamily Cypripedioideae). The forum has areas which are devoted to the genera of lady slippers (Genera: Paphiopedilum, Phragmipedium, Cypripedium, Selenipedium, and Mexipedium). Now, to say that this is an orchid forum is going right back to the beginning. Again, stated the obvious, as we already know a lady slipper is an orchid.

and here I concede, because if it would be as easy to change the system as I have suggested, then it would be just as easy for someone else to change it tomorrow.

Anyone who has evidence for cause of creating, segregating, lumping, or anhialating species can do so. Just because you propose your idea, does not mean it will be accepted. You have to have proof in order to do so. As for changing the entire system, it is not as easy as you perceive it to be.

But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out.

Again, to use family as a generic epithet is redundant. The idea is to simplify classification, and sometimes we have to split things up, and sometimes we have to put things back, or just lump them together.

You misunderstood the my point. The point was that as more research is done (however this is done, whether subatomic technology or whatever) the relationships of plants will be better understood. This relationship may lead to a plant being moved from one genus to another, but it’s name should remain the same.

How can we keep the name the same if it is not related to the species in the generic level? Ok, back to this:

We have Euchile citrina. It was originally described as Sobralia citrina. It is not related to Sobralia in the generic level, so it was moved to Cattleya, as Cattleya citrina. The species did not relate to the type for Cattleya, so it was transferred again to Epidendrum, as Epidendrum citrinum. Some of the species Epidendrum were segregated into Encyclia, in which Epi. citrinum became Encyclia citrina. More recently, it was proposed that the species belong to Wes Higgin's segregate genus 'Prosthechea', but it is more correctly assigned to a closely related, yet seperated genus, known as Euchile (by Withner, 1998).

So to call Euchile citrina a Sobralia, Cattleya, Epidendrum, Encyclia, or a Prosthechea is incorrect. Those names are part of synonymy for Euchile citrina.

Hope this somewhat helps. If you can provide more information, I think Braem and I can definitely help. But for now, the reasoning is vague, yet this is still a good discussion. I am not trying to offend you or tear you down in any way, just for the record.

-PM

 

[Braem]

IMaybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:

I am afraid you just don't get the point on this. What you propose will just shove (sp?) the problem into another level. The problem will remain the same.

basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?

so, if

Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes?

YES ... You got it.

If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No?

NO. There is only ONE basionym, and that is the first name given to the species (in the original publication). That was "Laelia purpurata". Therefore if it would become Cattleya purpurata, the basionym will be Laelia purpurata and "Sophronitis purpurata" is reduced to y simple synonym.

Its actualy very simple. A taxon can only have one type and one basionym, but many synonyms.

Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species.

What is an "ever increasing prior name"? Or do you want to say the prior names in chronological sequence. In that casr YES. The first name turns into the basionym, all others become synonyms

But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out.

The current system works. But there is no point in knowing an address if you have not learned how to find that address. Thus, the current system itself is good enough as far as the "Taxonomy" is concerned. However, what is at fault is the "systematics". We have to define the species properly. We have to find a way to say what is "variation enough to divide the species" etc. etc.

Again, It is not a problem to find Sam Adams if you know what Sam Adams is, what a refrigerator is, in what refrigerator you have put the "juice," what house the fridge is in, what city the house is in, etc. etc. that is pure taxonomy and systematics.

So now back to orchids.
Fat Guido (alias Braem) defines Ledebergia nonexistentia, and published it validly and effectively as of 17 Aprilium 2754. As it is the first species of the genus, we have also defined the genus Ledebergia. Now, we decide that it is a slipper (no need for DNA) eyes will do. The plant comes from outer Mongolia and grew on trees, so we have a Paphiopedilum.

This we have a full proof taxonomy and systematics:

Family Orchidaceae
Subfamily Cypripedioidea
Genus Ledebergia
Species nonexistentia

to be cited as Ledebergia nonexistentia Braem 2754, and that is a full-proof designation of the plant. What is wrong with that system?

Now we can start playing around under what conditions and how that name can be changed, but one thing at the time.

Some strange noice is calling me to the kitchen.

Guido

 

[Heather]

I just have to say (cause I know about these things at least oke: )
that Octoberfest is as such here because that's how we spell it in the USA. and Sammy's an American beer.

I think most of the German beers spell it with the 'k'.

I like that analogy. Off to get another Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale.....

 

[Braem]

That is OK with me, it just struck me that if they are keeping the second part of the word "fest" in German, there is no reason not to do the same thing to the first part of the word.

Guido

I just have to say (cause I know about these things at least oke: )
that Octoberfest is as such here because that's how we spell it in the USA. and Sammy's an American beer.

I think most of the German beers spell it with the 'k'.

I like that analogy. Off to get another Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale.....