Quote:
Originally Posted by kavanaru
4.- The "Mess" that you mentioned and "complain" about is not only present in Orchidaceae... youhave it in different taxonomic groups too. You must keep something in mind, botanists (including taxonomist and systematicists), but also zoologist, mycologist and so on, care about (among other things) the correct classification of the species, and this is revised every now and then... whether this makes easier or not the work of gardeners and horticulturist, is just rubbish.... they don't care about that, and that's correct that way! Horticulturist have two options, the yadapt to the new systems (and will always be behind it!) or just ignore it completely... Orchidists have decided to follow the taxonomists (in other plant groups they decided for the opposite, and for example they give names to particular clones and not to hybrids) and therefore must struggle with the changes you find form time to time... The Laeliinae case is an "easy" one...If you see Masdevallia, this is a more complex case.
|
4. (b) Within life sciences, there is HEAVY pressure to PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH...we live our lives in research through grants. We get grants by publishing notable studies. Some degree of nomenclatural redefinition must, of course, be chalked up to a desire to publish, either for personal notoriety or in desire of grants.
For my own part, i prefer a splitter's eye (see Castro & Chiron) on the laeliinae. And there are genetic analyses to support it (genetic classifications change WILDLY depending on what markers one uses). Too many, however, are disinclined to write Hoffmannseggella out on a tag.
As mentioned before though, horticultural and botanical interests are rather...divested, to be perfectly honest. It infuriates both the scientist AND the horticulturalist in me that RHS is being so quick to jump on what amounts to a bandwagon of scientific politics.
-Cj
Threaded Mode