[MPWG] Reliable nomenclature information

[rrr at montana.com]

Dear K. Magudapthy,

I would suggest the consistent authority of the Missouri Botanical Gardens
website: TROPICOS at:
http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

You are correct that it is very important to use a consistent authority.

For the benefit of all on this list, here is an explanation of the problem:

Nomenclature, or the naming of plant species, is set by the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). These naming "rules" are maintained
and updated periodically at meetings of botanists called International
Botanical Congresses. They publish their new rules in the ICBN. However,
neither the Botanical Congress, nor the rules have any executive or
judicial power. The rules must be accepted or rejected on their own
merits. There is no way, outside of peer pressure, to force a recalcitrant
taxonomist or botanist or herbalist into line.

Taxonomists, systematicists, and botanists can write floras for a country
or area based on how they interpret the variations of plants. However,
they should base their naming on an agreed upon group of followers. For
example, there are at least three if not five or more classifications for
flowering plants. Arthur Cronquist, Armen Takhtajan, and Robert Thorne are
among the most popular. Here's how just two of them differ:

Cronquist used 3 major superfamiliar ranks: class, subclass and order
	Dicots put into Magnoliopsida
		6 subclasses and 64 orders
	Monocots put into Liliopsida
		5 subclasses and 19 orders
Total families: 389 (323 dicots and 66 monocots)

Takhtajan used 4 major superfamiliar ranks: class, subclass, superorder
and order
	8 subclasses of Dicots – 36 superorders, 128 orders, and 429 families
	4 subclasses of Monocots – 16 superorders, 36 orders and 104 families

So the question is: Are there 389 flowering plant families or 533?
Do you see the problem?
Well, the answer is that it really doesn’t matter. Lumpers and splitters
are both welcome at the table. It is, however, important to be consistent.
If you are going to follow Cronquist, then don't mix him up with Weber or
vice versa. Stick to one authority.

My taxonomist colleague here, who is a legume/pea systematicist, throws up
his hands. For example, there are 6 Latin binomials for one grass species!
It is interesting to know that most botanists here still haven't bought
into much of the grass name changes, even after ten years. In the end, we
have to make a decision on what Latin name we are going to use.

There are so many changes lately, however, because of the discovery that
some plants are not related after all.  That is, plants were once
classified by morphology (physical characteristics). But just as seals and
penguins are not really related, though they both have flippers, so too,
many plant species (such as the now very changed Scrophulariaceae or
figwort family) have been moved into different families. This is because
of the new ability to read the genetic code in the chloroplast and
mitochondrial DNA.  Genes provide a better clue than physical alikeness,
which can be more subjective and opinionated.

It is important not to get too excited when someone publishes a new name
for a plant.
Here in the U.S. black cohosh is an important medicinal plant. The name
has been Cimicifuga racemosa, but the new name (which is also the old
name) has once again been proposed as Actaea racemosa. That puts the plant
in a whole different genus! Some have suggested Echinacea angustifolia be
changed to E. pallida var. angustifolia!

But back in 1850, black cohosh was known as Macrotys and Echinacea was
known as Brauneria. I’m sure they grumbled back then when the names were
changed for these plants.

These changes are very difficult for herbalists. I believe it is best to
stay with the Latin names we are familiar with and that are in our
medicinal monographs. Use the name it is most known by in your country
until the new name becomes generally recognized.

However, you can also decide to follow one authority in a consistent
manner. Missouri Botanical Garden’s website is a commonly used
nomenclature authority.  There might be an authority in India which is
better to use.

Best Regards, Robyn Klein

-- 
Robyn Klein, MS Medical Botany
Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology
119 Plant BioScience Building
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT  59717-3150
robyn at montana.edu
http://plantsciences.montana.edu/facultyorstaff/staff.html

> Dear friends
> We are preparing a Dictionary for medicinal plants (Regional name Tamil
> and
> corresponding botanical name) for the benefits of natural healers,
> scholars
> of siddha and ayurveda, botany etc,
>
> I would like to know, where i will get the latest nomenclature of plants
> and
> photos of the same. I need a help from our members,  suggest me a reliable
> webpage or book.
>
> K.Magudapathy M.Sc (Agri)
> ABS Botanical conservation research and Training Institute,
> Salem, TN, INDIA
> dunhillsph at gmail.com