Not much reaction... Is there anything we can do?

Hello,

My two-months re-up of the subject... Some reaction would be appreciated!

Best,
Christophe

Hi Cassi,
Thanks for getting back in touch, and for your proposal. I'm afraid Musa classification is much more complicated than that, and trying to summarize it in two or three words will always be unsatisfying and often misleading. The word "related" implies for me, a kind of genetic relationship, or the fact that other types within this species will have something in common with it. eg for instance that other bananas within Musa acuminata will always have something strongly in common with Cavendih type. The problem is that for instance within what is grouped in Musa acuminata (and even more within Musa × paradisiaca), there is in fact a wide genetic intraspecific range and an even wider range of uses. In the spirit of people who do not know well the banana world (and of course, there are a lot, and this is normal), the word "Cavendish" is associated with sweet export banana, and "Plantain" with any cooking type banana. This is false and this is why I took the time to write the journal post indicated above here (https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/chris971/6868-some-words-about-the-classification-of-bananas-and-their-naming), to explain this diversity. And then again, this is why I definitely prefer the generic word of "banana" for each of these species, because it covers any genetic composition and any use (and this is what I did for the French translation).
Regards,
Christophe

Of course, yes, there is some kind of geneticrelationship. You're right, but here we have a misleading association between a scientific binomial name and a common language word which does not cover the same range of diversity at all. Let me take an example: within Musa acuminata, at iNaturalist, you will find some diploid seminiferous ancestors of cultivated bananas (small fruits with seeds), some diploid non seminiferous cultivated ones, the classical Cavendish export banana, the cooking types from East African Highlands Countries and a lot of other less widespread varieties. It is wrong to summarize all that as Cavendish banana, or to use the word "Cavendish" as a kind of flag for all this diversity. The generic word "banana" is in my opinion, the only convenient one. And I can give you the same range of diversity (even higher in fact) for Musa × paradisiaca.

In fact we are currently fighting against the grouping of both cultivated and wild forms within the same denomination (eg. Musa acuminata). The large majority of banana records at iNaturalist are in fact cultivated forms, sterile types that should not be present here (but I'm very happy they are, because it is highly informative for our work) because they belong to a cultivated taxonomy and should not be qualified of "species". It is an (unstisfactory) compromise done at iNaturalist. Anyway, what I mean is that "Cavendish" is a very particular case of banana within the Musa acuminata grouping and cannot represent Musa acuminata in common words. Banana is true and generic, and may be used both for Musa acuminata, Musa × paradisiaca (and even Musa balbisiana by the way).

From the "Good and Bad Common Names" paragraph: "try to add names at the taxonomic level where they describe all members of that taxon and only members of that taxon." This NOT the case of Cavendish banana which only describes... Cavendish bananas! Whereas, "banana" includes all the diversity within the Musa acuminata taxon. Same thing for Musa × paradisiaca.