| Author |
Message |
    
Tim
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 04:17 pm EST : |   
 |
I mentioned in another thread that I would look for the piece written by John Lonsdale regarding the change of name from C. trochopteranthum to C. alpinum. I have been in touch with John and he is happy for me to post this piece.
“The September edition of The Plantsman arrived today with a beautiful picture of Cyclamen trochopteranthum on the front cover. I was somewhat amazed to find that the reason for this was an article by Chris Grey Wilson (the editor of the Journal) making a proposal to reject the name C. trochopteranthum in favor of C. alpinum. I am at a loss to understand the logic behind this and can't see how it can possibly serve the horticultural community? Whilst trochopteranthum is somewhat of a tongue-twister it is memorable and uniquely and strongly associated with the plant which currently bears that name, it is also widely accepted and used commercially. Although my knowledge of the rules of priority is very limited, I thought there was a provision to permit retention of such names in favor of ones which may strictly have priority. Surely this is such a case (if one accepts trochopteranthum and alpinum are synonymous)? Re-introducing the specific epithet 'alpinum' can only lead to further confusion, since that name has been previously and widely used at various levels of the taxonomic hierarchy in respect of a number of Cyclamen species. Whether or nor Sprenger's alpine cyclamen (C. alpinum) was or was not C. trochopteranthum is largely irrelevant in this argument. Had the proposal been based upon incontrovertible evidence it might have been less controversial, but the rationale presented appears to be based upon a subjective analysis of anecdotal evidence and the available literature.
Any proposal of this nature only becomes 'fact' when widely accepted and used in the horticultural community. Given that some nurseries are still not up to date with the naming of C. hederifolium, maybe this is much ado about nothing?
Assuming I am completely off base, I would be very pleased to hear a useful justification for the proposed change."
Thanks, John
Tim
- Cambridgeshire,
Zone "7 "
|
Tim
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 04:38 pm EST : |
|
This next piece was written by Chris Grey-Wilson. I am presuming it was in response to John's original message. I found this post at Alpine-L.
"As a botanist I would never propose any name change (particularly that of a well-established cultivated plant!) without due care and attention, as well as thoroughly researching the subject. In revising a new edition of my Cyclamen monograph it became evident that the name C. trochopteranthum was a
later synonym of C. alpinum of Carl Sprenger.
There was no justification for maintaining the latter name and I therefore took up the correct name C. alpinum, following all the necessary rules of the International Code on
Nomenclature. This was not rushed into print: rather I wrote a paper for inclusion in The Plantsman and sent it to both Chris Brickell and Brian Matthew for comment and vetting. It was then put to the RHS Nomenclatural
Committee who agreed the finding and, as a result, the plant will be listed in the next edition of the RHS Plant Finder as C. alpinum."
It's only a small point, but I wish that people could spell Brian Mathew's name properly - Mathew, NOT Matthew. Perhaps I'm alone in finding this in particular extremely disrespectful. Rant over.
Tim
- Cambridgeshire,
Zone "7 "
|
Tony_willis
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 06:34 pm EST : |
|
Tim
I have no axe to grind on this one,it will probably be changed back at some time and people like me who do not buy the latest book will be back in step, but using the expression 'In revising a new edition of my Cyclamen monograph it became evident ' is the sort of rubbish non answer we get from goverment spokepersons on the TV every night. If I was answering such a question I would follow it with 'because' and give the reasons. The next paragraph is equally woolley,why was there no justification? Has the paper been published?.
Tony_willis
- Lancashire,
Zone "7"
|
Tim
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 01:30 am EST : |
|
Hi Tony, as far as I know the paper arrpeared in an editon of 'The Plantsman'. There were other postings on Alpine-L when all of this was going on which were more or less saying the same thing as you - that real answers were needed, not quotes from the nomenclatural rule book.
Tim
- Cambridgeshire,
Zone "7 "
|
Matthias
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 03:10 am EST : |
|
'In revising a new edition of my Cyclamen monograph it became evident'
Tim, Tony, I fully agree with you: This kind of language saying that some kind of higher being has decided something and that all the other lesser mortals (Tony, I like this term of yours!) don´t need to understand (because they are believed not to be able to understand?!) the reasons why this decision seemed necessary can cause much frustration and anger among people who share the same interest or love or knowledge (!) in/of/about something. On the other hand it is understandable and often necessary that, if you work scientifically you have to be very careful with your wording and often a very `detached´scientific language is used. But this can be no excuse for treating fellow enthusiasts like ignorants.
Matthias
- Southern Germany,
Zone "7"
|
Tim
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 12:28 pm EST : |
|
The following paragraph was the final piece written by C G-W in his reply to John Lonsdale and I initially omitted it from that posting because at that time it seemed irrelevant.
It's a little aggressive I think and is a lesson on how not to endear yourself to people.
The paragraph is this:
"Readers of Alpine-L would be wise to read the paper first before jumping 'into the deep end' and making ill-considered and ill-informed judgements."
Tim
- Cambridgeshire,
Zone "7 "
|
Tony_willis
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 01:04 pm EST : |
|
Tim I have read the correspondence on alpine-l, what fun. A little confession here,I really am one of the totally ignorant in these matters,I just enjoy a good argument and seeing people wound up to bursting point, particularly if it is something I am not passionate about.
However in the 1997 edition of the cyclamen book CG-W goes to considerable lengths to justify the name trochopteranthum. Now as I see these things, if some scientific discovery had been made which changed our present knowledge with a little humilty this could be acknowledged and accepted. In this case however it seems to be an issue of research and whether what was done was suficient in the first case as presumably the information was out there at the time of the 1997 book,or maybe not.
My last thought on this issue before I get on with my life,being generous I doubt if there are fifty people in the whole world who care, and in reality less than ten, what this particular plant is called
Tony_willis
- Lancashire,
Zone "7"
|
Berthold
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 01:40 pm EST : |
|
Tony, I am one of them and I will call it "trochopteranthum" for the rest of my life probably.
Berthold
- NRW, Germany,
Zone "8a"
|
Jgwoodard
My Garden
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 02:31 pm EST : |
|
For those who haven't read the article, Grey-Wilson concluded that C. alpinum, as described in Friedrich Hildebrand's Die Gattung Cyclamen, is the same species as the plants Otto Schwartz described as C. trochopteranthum in 1975 (from a 1956 Peter Davis and Oleg Polunin expedition to Southwest Turkey, collection numbers 25368 and 25579).
Grey-Wilson had recently studied an English edition of Hildebrand's 1898 work on the genus (published in 1999 by the Cyclamen Society). Basically, the author was asking the question 'What is C. alpinum?'. His evidence (the 'it became evident part') is that (according to Hildebrand and Sprenger) C. alpinum is a spring-flowering species that occurs in southern and southwestern Turkey. A quick process of elimination and he concluded that C. coum has a range that is too eastern and that C. persicum was known by both Hildebrand and Sprenger and would not have been confused with C. alpinum. The author emphasized rules of priority, as mentioned above, to justify the rejection of 'trochopteranthum' as a synonymn. The author did not feel that it would be confusing because the epithet 'alpinum' has been used in the genus to refer to different taxa. He assumed perhaps that cyclamen enthusiasts keep up with the literature (which obviously isn't the case) and that it would only be potentially confusing to gardeners. Certainly that is not an assumption you can make with the 'horticultural community' at large either, most of whom don't even know the genus exists, much less the differences among species.
I think it is no problem to go by a code of nomenclature. If people do not agree that it is helpful, then they can continue to label their plants as always. On the other hand, the literature is out there, and people already use C. alpinum, sometimes with 'trochopteranthum' in parentheses. Though not a world changing event, I enjoyed the article overall and think that it is helpful, if only for heuristic purposes. Could he have given the same information and stopped short of formally attempting to change (renew) the name? Should he have consulted others first? If so, whom and how many? Are Chris Brickell and Brian Mathew insufficient? Should he have crafted his words, particularly his verbs, more carefully? I don't know, but there was no crime in producing the article, nor was it particularly poorly written.
**This interpretation provided by a person who has read the article, who is only marginally interested in cyclamen, and who does not know Christopher Grey-Wilson. There are obviously some things going on here that are unrelated to the article, aren't there? :-)
Jgwoodard
- TN,
Zone "7"
|
Geoforce
My Weather
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 02:47 pm EST : |
|
I tend to be rather in agreement (I think I understand what he said) with Joseph on this one. The supposed reason for accepting the later name of trochopteranthum versus the prior name of alpinum was that alpinum had been used for various taxa, and thus was a somewhat ambiguous name. If, however, it is accepted that the 'FIRST' assignment of the name alpinum was in fact to the same taxa as that which was now accepted as trochopteranthum, then the prior name is of precedence, and should be revived. All of the intermediate taxa, wrongly assigned to this name have been more correctly classified under differing binomials, and thus seem to present no problem.
Despite this, it is probable that you will see this species under both names for decades, as we still do with hederifolium and neapolitanum.
Just my uninformed thoughts, but a very interesting thread. Hope we're not getting into too much sophistry here.
Geoforce
- Pennsylvania,
Zone "USDA 7a"
|
Tim
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 03:54 pm EST : |
|
Well... yes there are, but whilst they might not be related to the article directly, they are related to the correspondence between John Lonsdale and C G-W and the often elitist attitude of the latter (which I have been on the end of personally too). Anyway, to continue down this path would mean going way off topic and it's not something I'm willing to carry on with.
When I posted this thread I had no idea that anyone would respond and nor did I care. I didn't want to and won't enter a debate about the subject. I did it to death when it was all happening, however, I felt that it would be useful information to have on the forum and now that there have been responses, I find myself feeling quite pleased about it.
Tim
- Cambridgeshire,
Zone "7 "
|
Matthias
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:29 pm EST : |
|
It would have been so much easier if a type location (locus classicus) had been given in the first place for the plants in question by the authors who had originally described them. Then no doubt whatsoever could have occurred about identities. If a later author founds a series of good ! (priority rule etc) arguments for a re-revision of nomenclature not on clear facts but on conclusions drawn from rather vague descriptions he must be willing to convince other enthusiasts and patiently answer questions.
Joseph, your analysis and clarification is very welcome, but in this case I think it was more about style than facts. This is at least how my statements have to be understood and that is how I understand most contributions to this interesting thread.
Matthias
- Southern Germany,
Zone "7"
|
Jgwoodard
My Garden
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:31 pm EST : |
|
It definitely belongs on this forum Tim, and I'm glad you posted it. At the time it was written, this forum did not exist and I'm sure the dynamics of the cyclamen community have changed a bit since then too. I just thought it might be helpful to summarize the article for those who are interested. I neither defend nor attack the contents as I am not qualified to do so, but if I see an opportunity to facilitate information on a topic that interests me, I generally jump in. There were some questions here (and in other related threads) that are at least partially, but directly, addressed in the article itself. I certainly feel that threads like these add significantly to the value of this site and are my favorite to read and learn from. There is plenty more to say on this topic and helps us not only understand cyclamen but also the effect of botanical literature on horticulture and vice versa.
Jgwoodard
- TN,
Zone "7"
|
Carol23
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:42 pm EST : |
|
A friend recently reported having purchased Cyclamen alpinum. When I told her it was previously named trochopteranthum, she replied that she already grew that species.
Maybe it's a ploy to sell more Cyclamen. 
Carol23
- Southeastern PA,
Zone "6B"
|
Geoforce
My Weather
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 06:25 pm EST : |
|
Matthias is correct that a local description would have been very helpful. More to the point, if the description is based on a preserved herbarium specimen as it should be then no revision should be attempted without reference to that specimen. Do we know where the holotypic specimen of the original description is preserved, and is it accessable?
I agree with Joseph again. This may be establishing a trend. I find this thread of great interest as it relates to the field of botanical nomenclature and taxonomy which I have a slightly better understanding of than of the genus in particular. From the very little I have read, even in this forum, it seems the genus is still somewhat in flux as witness several earlier comments re subspecies, and the reseparation of elegans as a species level descriptor rather than a varietal or subspecies.
Geoforce
- Pennsylvania,
Zone "USDA 7a"
|
Tony_willis
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 06:40 pm EST : |
|
Or more books.
I fully agree with the points made by Matthias and you are right Joseph there are undercurrents running here.But it would not be possible to keep the old name to show a plant now with it at a Cyclamen Society Show or AGS show without being corrected and made to feel ignorant and out of date. The decision has been handed down and must be accepted.
I am sure that it happens in all countries and organisations but much of what happens in these discussions is down to the childish 'politics' and one upmanship inherent in organisations. The facts are often lost in the posturing.
Tony_willis
- Lancashire,
Zone "7"
|
Jgwoodard
My Garden
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 07:20 pm EST : |
|
As is my tendency, I became curious about all this business and found the information below. Many of you have probably already read it.
http://www.cyclamen.org/cse97turk.htm
Jgwoodard
- TN,
Zone "7"
|
Geoforce
My Weather
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 07:30 pm EST : |
|
Yes Joseph, I had read all of the expedition reports on the cyclamen.org site, more as a general interest thing. I recall this one. At the time, I was searching for info on the ranges of alpinum as I was fascinated with a photo Tim had posted of those lovely pinwheel shaped flowers, and was puzzled as to why this site didn't list alpinum in the species list.
Geoforce
- Pennsylvania,
Zone "USDA 7a"
|
Matthias
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 04:58 am EST : |
|
This tread is getting better and better, thanks to all contributers.
I think the above questíon sheds a good light on problems like this: If a revision of taxonomic status and/or nomenclature is proposed by an author he/she must make sure it is very well founded on clear, convincing facts and the new situation is better and more helpful in dealing with the complexities of such matters both for botanists and gardeners.
Any revision can only be effective if it is accepted (and this trend is growing with today´s means of communication) by the large community of specialists, and these want to be convinced and not receive instructions.
The fact that the world´s leading cyclamen organisation in its official species portait still insists on the epithet `trochopteranthum´and doesn´t even mention the recent revision in nomenclature says it all.
I find the revision unfortunate not only because it is obviously not accepted even by leading specialists but because it adds to confusion if you re-introduce a name that had caused so much confusion in the past. In this case it would have been wise and more helpful to lose a bit on the side of a possible small violation of the priority rule and win clarity and acceptance, not to mention the totally misleading implications of the epithet `alpinum´if it can be found growing shortly above sea level.
Matthias
- Southern Germany,
Zone "7"
|
Tony_willis
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 08:11 am EST : |
|
It is an interesting point about acceptance by the Cyclamen Society but I feel you have been mislead by the web site not being updated.In the 2004 journal the seed list contains 'alpinum' as does the show report for Wisley Winter show 2004. The name has also been adopted in an article in the December 2004 journal having been accepted in an article in the same journal 'Classification changes in cyclamen.
However in a an article 'A review of species limits in Cyclamen' in the Society's June 2005 journal it is stated by Ietswaart the author-The epithet alpinum should not be used in the genus cyclamen because of being a doubtful name,which has been stated by C G-W (1988 appendix,p 143) In the same 2005 journal the new name had been adopted in the show reports
Clearly the name trochopteranthum was dispensed with by the society by the date of the June 2004 journal.
Tony_willis
- Lancashire,
Zone "7"
|
| | |
