[Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and The PlantList
Gurcharan Singh
singhg45 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 13 10:54:23 CDT 2014
My fear is that not even all IPNI names are incorporated. Regarding
autonyms we all know that when a subspecies or variety is distinguished
within a species, the author has to list differences from the type material
(latter getting automatically established as autonym, no one has to publish
it). Perhaps compilers need that orientation before being roped in. More so
if we have a subspecies foemina, we also need to have a subspecies
anagallis, and var. caerulea has to find place among any of these two, not
just a variety under the species. The example I have given defies all rules
of botanical nomenclature.
The other day I was going through the proceedings of last Botanical
Congress where new code and new name was agreed upon, and appreciated the
great pains all of us go through to see that Code is flawless, but if face
of all labour (as huge botanical community relies on the Plant List) is
this, I don't know who can help. A had sent list of more than 1000 errors
in the First Version to the authorities, unfortunately still there second
version, some even magnified.
Dr. Gurcharan Singh
Retired Associate Professor
SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089
http://www.gurcharanfamily.com/
http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
wrote:
> We may hope that a substantial group of users realizes
> that The Plant List is a work in progress and contains
> errors. Of course, there will be many users who don't
> realize that and take the list for gospel, but perhaps
> these people could not be helped anyway? The wise
> user will have realized that any authoritative list of names
> tends to be relative (as taxonomy is not carved in stone).
>
> This does not apply to mosses. I did not look into this
> in any depth, but my impression is that The Plant List just
> copied each and every species name in Tropicos and
> promoted it to an "accepted name", including combinations
> with illegitimate generic names (later homonyms). It is not
> hard to turn up cases of species that have four "accepted
> names" in The Plant List. It would have been better not to
> include names for mosses, or to declare them all to be
> "unresolved names".
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gurcharan Singh
> To: Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and The
> PlantList
>
>
> Thanks for your your optimistic approach. The Plant List claims to
> differentiate between accepted names and synonyms, and if it is itself not
> clear whether particular name deserves the rank of species, subspecies or
> variety, what are the synonyms, declares a big chunk of names as
> unresolved, I fail to understand how it helps the taxonomic community.
>
>
> Dr. Gurcharan Singh
> Retired Associate Professor
> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
> Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089
> http://www.gurcharanfamily.com/
> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Paul van Rijckevorsel <
> dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
>
> Well, the Index Kewensis is not lost; it can still be
> consulted in IPNI (more or less, the online version
> differs somewhat from the printed version, hopefully
> for the better).
>
> Perhaps the compilers of The Plant List assume that
> the users can add autonyms for themselves. Or perhaps
> they just are restricting themselves to published names.
> All in all, The Plant List does not look not so bad to me
> (as long as one stays well clear of mosses!), although
> it clearly is not error free.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gurcharan Singh" <singhg45 at gmail.com>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 6:36 PM
> Subject: [Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and The
> PlantList
>
>
> > As young scholars we were felt pride in holding fat two volumes of
> Index
> > Kewensis to help us sort accepted names and synonyms. There was a
> great
> > hope when online version was integrated into The Plant List. For
> once many
> > of us thought it would be great boon to the the taxonomic, but alas
> the
> > more I consult The Plant List, I get increasingly frustrated,
> compelling me
> > to wonder: Is there a real serious taxonomist involved with the
> project, or
> > a band of IT specialists who don't know basics of botanical
> nomenclature.
> > Here is the sample of commonest weed for you to Decide: The accepted
> names
> > within the species
> >
> > *Anagallis* *arvensis* L.
> > <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2636008>
> > *Anagallis* *arvensis* var. *caerulea* (L.) Gouan
> > <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2636010>
> > *Anagallis* *arvensis* subsp. *foemina* (Mill.) Schinz & Thell.
> > <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2636015>
> > *Anagallis* *arvensis* var. *pallida* (Hook.f.) Hook.f.
> > <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2636022>
> > *Anagallis* *arvensis* var. *parviflora* (Hoffmanns. & Link) Ces.,
> Pass. &
> > Gibelli <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2636024>
> >
> > Please note there is no subsp. arvensis (autonym) and var. arvensis
> > (another autonym) is regarded as simple synonym A. arvensis, accepted
> > varieties are directly under the species.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Gurcharan Singh
> > Retired Associate Professor
> > SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
> > Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
> > Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089
> > http://www.gurcharanfamily.com/
> > http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> > Versie: 2014.0.4765 / Virusdatabase: 4015/8176 - datum van uitgifte:
> 09/08/14
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
>
> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 2014.0.4765 / Virusdatabase: 4015/8201 - datum van uitgifte:
> 09/12/14
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list