No subject

[Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=]

hardy  Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL> Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sender: "Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
From: Wilbert Hetterscheid <hetter at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: Taxonomy on trial (AGAIN!!)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transf er-Encoding: 7bit

Howdee peoples,

I see that the mere mentioning of the word "taxonomists" creates a panic =as
if (hypothetically) foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in Europe......=...

I enjoyed all three reactions (Tony's, Ray's and Paul's) and none is take=n
as an offense (am I being dense here or what.....?).

First to Ray:

> Maybe Tony meant that if a certain erudite taxonomist would stop messin=g
> with
> Amorphs and apply his talents to straightening out the Arisaema mess,
> we'd all
> be indebted.

It looks like this is more what YOU would like/hate to see than Tony. I k=now
Tony and his love for taxonomists, so I am sure he was joking.............
He always admires them deeply because without them his name shields in hi=s
collections would merely contain meaningless dribble. Right, Tony?

As far as messing around goes with Amorphophallus (and BELIEVE me, they a=re
FINE to mess around with), it is a lucky coincidence that I am sort of th=e
only taxonomist doing the messing around. Be sure that when somebody else
discovered the romantics of Amorphophallus, you'd all be in the same
name-game trouble...... Am I still defending taxonomists? Somehow this
didn't sound like it.....

Tony's reaction:

"Wilbert:

I seem to recall a conversation we had at the IAS meeting in St.
Louis,
when you were explaining to ME about bad taxonomists (re: arisaemas) as
compared to good ones...I believe you used yourself as the "good" example.
Hmmm?  Just deferring to your expert opinion."

First off, this converstion took place WAY later than all the debauching
mumbo-jumbo about taxonomists in your fantastic catalogues. Not that I am
complaining......but it was YOU who started! Did! Did not? DID!

Bad taxonomists in Arisaema? Did I say that? Wow, must have been drinking
too much milk. The fact that there are only very few taxonomists dealing
with Arisaema, will turn itself against me this time. Well, I have to adm=it
that the present status of Arisaema taxonomy is far from ideal. Two main
players in this, Prof. Li Heng and Prof. Jin Murata seem to have some
opposite opinjuns about quite some matters concerning especially the Chin=ese
species, which we all cherish as amateurs because of their bizarre looks.
There are two important publications on the way. First there is the Engli=sh
version of Flora of China by Li Heng. That will give us the state-of-the-=art
in Chinese Arisaema taxonomy. Whether we believe what's in there or not,
it's all we have, so folks, we'll have to live with that. Then there will=be
the Flora Malesiana Araceae treatment in which Jin Murata will cover
Arisaema. This will include a fresh look on the taxonomy of the more
tropical Arisaema, a topic no-one else has covered for many decades. The
Japanese ones have been covered already by Jin Murata in the past, so we'=re
not that bad off in the end.

The problems taxonomists deal with is that not all taxonomy in all parts =of
the world is methodically similar. Plant lovers as ourselves often love t=o
have a tag on a plant and love to have as many different tags as possible.
Taxonomists sometimes help (splitters) or not (lumpers). In general we
experience that in China it is quite customary to be on the splitting sid=e,
meaning we get a lot of names and do not always understand why a differen=ce
between two suggested species is important or not. Then there is a tenden=cy
in some taxonomists to formalise variation within a species in many names=at
the levels of subspecies of forma's and varieties. I am particularly
suspicious about that. It, sort of, brings down the whole idea of dynamic
species to non-dynamic entities below the species level. BUT, for us
plant-lovers, there's a massive increase in name-tags (like as in
Rhododendron etc.). Then again, because the differences between described
entities at that level are mostly small, other taxonomists find easy
arguments to discard of those names again..... And we LOVE that, don't
we..........??

Basic to all this is that NO taxonomist, or biologist for that matter, ha=s
an undisputed idea of WHAT kind of entities that we think we recognise in
nature, should get a name at the species level. Our Holy Grail is to
downsize continuous variation and change (evolution!!) to seemingly "stat=ic"
entities. Well, good luck to us, because this ain't never gonna work
satisfactorily!! So what we do is creating a hopefully best-possible
solution to cutting up nature in pieces and name them and have others use
the names to refer to these cuttings. Needless to say, with changing
insights (taxonomy IS a progressing science, believe it or not!!), these
'cuttings" sometimes (or more often) have to be re-organised (species
jumping from one genus [Sauromatum ring a bell?] to another), re-defined =and
eventually often re-named............ And THAT's how we taxonomists earn =a
living. Hey, live and let live, o.k.!!! I am not complaining about Homo
sapiens specimens that gather plants and SELL them, for god's sake!!!! An=d
what do they sell? Names, names, and names........ Right, Tony????? So, i=n
conclusion: without taxonomists, you could sell the same plant to one
customer only once, whereas with OUR help, you could sell it to him three
times!!! Now, WHAT's the complaint!!!!????

Paul's reaction:

"I think once they finish with the Amorphs they'll just join the other ha=lf
million working on the various Orchid genera that they are categorising,
recategorising, uncategorising (if there isn't such a word I'm sure THEY
don't know that) and then categorising them back into where they started
before they recategorised them.

I often wonder if that is how they guarantee a job for themselves?

I'm sure I've just upset someone by saying this.  If so, I apologise for
upsetting you, but not for saying it.  I certainly can't understand why
they do what they do then undo it later.  Sigh!!

Then after the Orchids they'll start on the Arisaemas...... Promise!!"

As for Paul's first question: yep, that's how we keep our families alive!=!
Pissed that YOU didn't think of that, huh!? You are probably working your
butt off while we sit behind our desks (lie on couches, in my particular
case) and do the categorising-shuffle, as you so aptly described. Guys, w=e
are exposed here!!! Let's be careful that not more people start to get th=e
picture..........

Having said that, I agree that if you're living for orchids (which I thin=k
is a mistake), you DO have a lot of taxonomists to deal with. Taxonomists
are swarming around the orchids because they are the only group of plants
that people spend BIG money on and taxonomists have a right to get their
share of it, right? Then again, there ARE a lot of orchids to
categorise........ Compared to a meagre 200 Arisaemas. I think ONE
taxonomist should be able to deal with that, provided he/she was being pa=id
BIG TIME by Arisaema lovers, who want the nomenclature to be stabilised
some. So, guys & dolls, send in them bucks. My giro postal account
is.........

On the question why taxonomists do and undo things I have elaborated some
above.

Last note: deep down inside, I feel agreement with all of you people
complaining about the name game. In the taxonomic community there is more
and more understanding that stabilisation of names, though never a goal i=n
itself, is something to strive for as long as it will not corrupt our
scientific approach. I am sure not all taxonomists have an equal feeling =of
responsability towards those on this planet that have to use the names. T=he
Ivory Tower is still standing and harbours a fair share of taxonomists. B=ut
in the end the Tower will erode (dramatic music is heard.......[a fitting
end: the closing bars of Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung, my favourite!!]).

Wilbert