|
Post by BarryRice on Jul 2, 2007 18:40:33 GMT
Hey Folks,
I'm revising my FAQ, and in the new version I have a page for each species. I was thinking about Sarracenia rosea. I notice that it has no "common name." I'm thinking about coining the common name "Burk's pitcher plant" for this. Any comments? Do you think I should use "Pink-flowered pitcher plant" instead?
Barry
|
|
|
Post by brokken on Jul 2, 2007 20:22:44 GMT
Hey Folks, I'm revising my FAQ, and in the new version I have a page for each species. I was thinking about Sarracenia rosea. I notice that it has no "common name." I'm thinking about coining the common name "Burk's pitcher plant" for this. Any comments? Do you think I should use "Pink-flowered pitcher plant" instead? Barry But you're always talking about the euphonious sounds of latin names and in this case, I agree. Not everything has to have a common name and in this case why not consider a third option: "No common Name"?
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Jul 2, 2007 20:23:03 GMT
Barry - You are in danger of rekindling an argument...
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Jul 2, 2007 20:27:27 GMT
According to Jan Schlauer, Sarracenia rosea {Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} is a synonym for Sarracenia purpurea {L.} subsp.venosa {(Raf.) Wherry} var.burkii {Schnell}, so a common name of Burk's pitcher plant would make sense.
Do you also propose a common name for Sarracenia rosea {Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} f.luteola {(Hanrahan & Miller) Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} -- which is the same as Sarracenia purpurea {L.} subsp.venosa {(Raf.) Wherry} var.burkii {Schnell} f.luteola {Hanrahan & Miller}?
|
|
|
Post by brokken on Jul 2, 2007 20:44:02 GMT
According to Jan Schlauer, Sarracenia rosea {Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} is a synonym for Sarracenia purpurea {L.} subsp. venosa {(Raf.) Wherry} var. burkii {Schnell}, so a common name of Burk's pitcher plant would make sense. Do you also propose a common name for Sarracenia rosea {Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} f. luteola {(Hanrahan & Miller) Naczi, F.W.Case & R.B.Case} -- which is the same as Sarracenia purpurea {L.} subsp. venosa {(Raf.) Wherry} var. burkii {Schnell} f. luteola {Hanrahan & Miller}? Actually "Burk's Pitcher Plant" gets my vote too.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Jul 2, 2007 22:08:30 GMT
I agree that I much prefer Latin names to common names. Alas, you talk to reporters or the public, and they ALWAYS want a common name.
In the absence of commonly-used common names, various people take it upon themselves to give plants common names. As a result of this, for example, some people are starting to call Sarracenia alata the "yellow pitcher plant", which is a dreadful idea because it invites confusion with Sarracenia flava.
In case I didn't make my reasoning clear, I suggested "Burk's pitcher plant" since (as Bob Z surmised) the horticultural name suggested by Wherry in 1933 was "Louis Burk", which Schnell then adopted to make var. burkii.
Check out my thread in Sarracenia rubra, that I'm about to start (give me about ten minutes)...
B
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jul 3, 2007 6:32:13 GMT
Dear Barry,
I thought it already had a common name... Wasn't it known for many years as Louis Burk's pitcher plant? This is why it was named after him, Sarracenia purpurea venosa burkii, as he was the first person to notice and cultivate it. Considering the history of it, I would really perfer the name be "S. purpurea burkii", scrap that S. rosea along with S. purpurea venosa...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jul 3, 2007 6:38:34 GMT
And before people get 'hot' about it, there is very good reason to scrap S. purpurea venosa. The type specimen for S. purpurea purpurea is from the southern end of the range, not the northern end. The separation of S. purpurea purpurea and S. purpurea venosa is superfluous and artifacial, the result of politics, not science.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Jul 3, 2007 15:13:44 GMT
@ Bob: I think that's the argument Aidan was trying to avoid, so much for that luck @ Dave: I don't think I want to start a debate whether a distinction is artificial or not. If it works for us poor growers, don't knock it @ Barry: To quote a respected member of the UK-forum: "S. rosea? Don't be ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Jul 3, 2007 15:16:16 GMT
Hey Dave,
As Aidan prophesied, I'm not interested in starting a shooting match over the validity of the various Sarracenia purpurea s. lat. entities, I'm just talking about the common names.
A minor correction, though. You are right that McDaniel chose a type specimen for S. purpurea from the Carolinas, which is from the southern part of the range. However, a proposal by Cheek was made in 1994 to reverse this choice. It was reviewed by the botanical committee in charge of such things (Committee for Spermatophyta) and they agreed that this was a problem, so a new type specimen from the northern part of the range was selected for S. purpurea.
Cheers
Barry
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jul 3, 2007 15:43:02 GMT
Hi Barry,
I didn't think I was "debating" anything here, I just thought it is pertinent to mention that yes, S. rosea already has a common name, "Louis Burk's pitcher plant". Also, I don't think it is a very good idea to "make up" new common names. The common name for plants are generated by the people who live locally in the same generally vicinity of the actual species, or subspecies or form--the system scientists use for naming plant has basically nothing to do with it. People in CA cannot make a common name for a plant that is only found in Thailand, or the Florida panhandle. The folks in the media need to be informed of such so they an be dissuaded from generating bogus information in their publications. The main reason they are so interested in being provided common names is because that is the format they have been taught in school. Also they are looking for historical "connections" between people and plants and feel common names help provide this to those not familar with the species. Sometimes this is the case and sometimes not.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Jul 3, 2007 20:57:01 GMT
Hey Dave,
OK. I thought the discussion was starting to veer into the discussion of the validity of the name S. rosea.
Regarding the creation of the names, I agree. I think it would be great to use locally coined common names. That's why on my FAQ I use "Pinheiro Baboso" for Drosophyllum.
But in many cases common names simply don't exist. So, we can choose not to do anything. But the choice to not do anything is equivalent to letting folks at the USDA Plants database or NatureServe, create common names instead.
You can amuse yourself by typing the name of a large genus into the PLANTS search field and see what you get. I just entered "Castilleja" and have found out about things like: Castilleja aquariensis = Aquarius Plateau Indian paintbrush Castilleja densiflora = denseflower Indian paintbrush Castilleja exserta = exserted Indian paintbrush
Oh sure....exserted Indian paintbrush.
We can have a say in these things, or let other people have control.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Jul 7, 2007 17:48:11 GMT
We can have a say in these things, or let other people have control. The thought of encouraging the coining of new, common names for plants makes me uneasy. Where such names exist already, they usually have a long local history which perhaps gives their usage a degree of validity. Common names often cause confusion and I spend a fair amount of time encouraging others to use Latin binomials. A case in point is the "Cobra Lilly". We all know this as a common name for Darlingtonia, but it is also the common name for some Arisaema and I believe other plants as well.
|
|
|
Post by RL7836 on Jul 7, 2007 19:06:24 GMT
I vote for Barry's original suggestion "Burk's pitcher plant". It's simple & unlikely to add to any confusion. Someone who is familiar w/ CP will immediately know which plant is being discussed and it's easy enough for new folks. As for making up common names, to help move the hobby of butterfly watching into the realm of the common lay person, NABA took a hint from bird watchers and created common names for all of the butterfly species normally found within the USA. For those interested in the process they used, I recommend checking here or googling for info ....
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Jul 7, 2007 21:09:49 GMT
I don't think we should start inventing more common names. Aidan has a point, there are plants that have the same common name and there are also different common names for the same plant. In the year we celebrate that Linnaeus, the father of standardizing naming plants and animals, was born 300 years ago we should consider the basic achievement of the man. Whether you are American, Dutch or Chinese you have the same standard name available to point out a specific plant.
|
|