New taxa described or combinations:
C. berberidis
C. dregeana var. spinosissima
C. pilosula
C. purpurea
C. x dissita
C. x homunculi
C. x ilicioides
C. x integerrima (sp. to hybrid)
C. x intermedia (sp. to hybrid)
C. x maclearica
C. x varians (sp. to hybrid)
C. x crenulata (sp. to hybrid)
C. x cymbifolia (sp. to hybrid)
C. x mirabilis (sp. to hybrid)
C. x semiteres (sp. to hybrid)
C. x subdura (sp. to hybrid)
New synonyms and Infraspecific taxa disregarded:
C. aequatorialis = C. nitidula subsp. nitidula
C. concinna = C. glauca
C. discolor = C. odorata
C. filicaulis var. octandra = C. filicaulis
C. geniculata = C. carinata
C. graminea var. convoluta = C. graminea
C. graminea var. elegans = C. graminea
C. hermaphroditica = C. juniperina
C. ilicifolia var. incisa = C. ilicifolia var. cordifolia
C. juniperina var. pilosula = C. pilosula
C. lanata = C. sericea
C. polygonifolia var. membranifolia = C. polygonifolia var. trifoliata
C. polygonifolia var. pubescens = C. polygonifolia var. trifoliata
C. dregeana var. meyeriana = C. dregeana var. dregeana
C. pulchella var. muconulata = C. pulchella
C. ruscifolia var. purpurea = C. purpurea
C. tenuis = C. marginata
C. theodori-friesii var. puberula = unknown
C. tuberculata var. muricata = C. tuberculata
C. uncinata var. recta = C. uncinata
This is where I would disagree with you. Hybrid names are part of taxonomy. They are there because they are useful. They can designate a taxon succinctly. A name such as C. x crenulata is certainly better than Cliffortia crenata x unknown sp. This is all the more so in Cliffortia, where hybrids can be a precursor to speciation and can spread vegetatively and apomictically. If you go down the route of using descriptive formulae instead of names then why not apply that to all taxonomy and just do away with names - a name is not supposed to carry information. It is also far better for searching on - try googling a hybrid formula and you would end up with a mess of results compared with a hybrid name.
You are thinking like a taxonomist and not someone working in the field.
So I find a funny plant. There is Cliffortia pungens and there is Cliffortia ruscifolia. It is intermediate. I thus know and can identify it. It is simply Cliffortia pungens x ruscifolia. To have to look up and remember Cliffortia x dissita is just silly. Especially when 95% of hybrids are never in any key. Nor are they included in field guides, in most conspecti and checklists. The name Cliffortia x dissita is obsolete and only of interest to one taxonomist every half century. The name Cliffortia pungens x ruscifolia is useful, pertinent, deductible, straightforward and does not require any additional knowledge, references, or obscure publications, or wracking one's brains to try and remember a 100% redundant name. That is even assuming that more than 10% of hybrids even have names (but they all have easily constructed hybrid formulae - even if one parent may have to remain "sp").
PS: I do agree with you for hybrids of unknown parentage: the a name is needed: For instance we can have 130 different hybrids with a parent of Cliffortia ruscifolia - calling them all Cliffortia ruscifolis x sp is meaningless.
But where parents are known ... (just use the hybrid formula - why bother remembering 130 disconnected names just for Cliffortia ruscifolia hybrids).
"To have to look up and remember Cliffortia x dissita is just silly." But that applies to any name. We can just call something the Protea with a black furry bit in the middle. That's why we do taxonomy - if people cannot remember names in the field does that mean we should not bother with giving them names. In many groups it is impossible to name taxa in the field - so the names are redundant???
Names are also linked to types. That is important for stability. Cliffortia x intermedia has been known for over 100 years and still grows in the same vicinity. If the putative parentage changes, the formula changes, not so with a typified name. Search Cliffortia intermedia online and you will pull up historic references to the taxon. Search Cliffortia ilicifolia x ruscifolia online and you will find nothing related to the hybrid until page 100 of google if you are lucky!
But types are meaningless for hybrids. Hybrids and their backcrosses can do the full range from one parent to the other. So the concept of a "type" hybrid is meaningless. A hybrid is an intermediate between the two parent types. The hybrid type is irrelevant
Comments
New taxa described or combinations:
C. berberidis
C. dregeana var. spinosissima
C. pilosula
C. purpurea
C. x dissita
C. x homunculi
C. x ilicioides
C. x integerrima (sp. to hybrid)
C. x intermedia (sp. to hybrid)
C. x maclearica
C. x varians (sp. to hybrid)
C. x crenulata (sp. to hybrid)
C. x cymbifolia (sp. to hybrid)
C. x mirabilis (sp. to hybrid)
C. x semiteres (sp. to hybrid)
C. x subdura (sp. to hybrid)
Higher classification
Subgenus Arboreae (Comb. nov.)
Subgenus Eriocephalinae (Subgen. nov.)
Subgenus Gramineae (Subgen. nov.)
Subgenus Cliffortia
Sect. Acerosae (Sect. nov.)
Sect. Alatae
Sect. Bacciformes
Sect. Bifoliolae
Sect. Cliffortia
Sect. Complanatae
Sect. Costatae
Sect. Dichopterae
Sect. Dracomontanae (Sect. nov.)
Sect. Filifoliae (Sect. nov.)
Sect. Multifidae (Sect. nov.)
Sect. Multinerviae
Sect. Nematobus
Sect. Paucistamineae (Sect. nov.)
Sect Petiolatae
Sect. Ruboides (Sect. nov.)
Sect. Stipulatae
Sect. Tenuifoliae
New synonyms and Infraspecific taxa disregarded:
C. aequatorialis = C. nitidula subsp. nitidula
C. concinna = C. glauca
C. discolor = C. odorata
C. filicaulis var. octandra = C. filicaulis
C. geniculata = C. carinata
C. graminea var. convoluta = C. graminea
C. graminea var. elegans = C. graminea
C. hermaphroditica = C. juniperina
C. ilicifolia var. incisa = C. ilicifolia var. cordifolia
C. juniperina var. pilosula = C. pilosula
C. lanata = C. sericea
C. polygonifolia var. membranifolia = C. polygonifolia var. trifoliata
C. polygonifolia var. pubescens = C. polygonifolia var. trifoliata
C. dregeana var. meyeriana = C. dregeana var. dregeana
C. pulchella var. muconulata = C. pulchella
C. ruscifolia var. purpurea = C. purpurea
C. tenuis = C. marginata
C. theodori-friesii var. puberula = unknown
C. tuberculata var. muricata = C. tuberculata
C. uncinata var. recta = C. uncinata
subgeneric changes flagged for curation.
New synonyms should wait for POWO to add the changes. @chris_whitehouse - any ideas how close this is to happening.
I dont like hybrid names They dont really help. Far more helpful are the hybrid formulae.
Can I please propose the following:
Cliffortia crenata × obovata
. - Cliffortia x varians
. - Cliffortia varians
Cliffortia dregeana × pungens
.- Cliffortia x ilicioides
Cliffortia ilicifolia × ruscifolia
. - Cliffortia x intermedia
. - Cliffortia intermedia
Cliffortia neglecta × tuberculata
.- Cliffortia x homunculi
Cliffortia odorata × theodori-friesii
. - Cliffortia x maclearica
. - Cliffortia odorata × ruscifolia
Cliffortia pungens × ruscifolia
. - Cliffortia x dissita
. - Cliffortia cymbifolia
Cliffortia x integerrima
. - Cliffortia odorata × ruscifolia × sp.
. - Cliffortia integerrima
Hybrids with unknown parents:
Cliffortia x crenulata
Cliffortia x cymbifolia
Cliffortia x mirabilis
Cliffortia x semiteres
Cliffortia x subdura
This is where I would disagree with you. Hybrid names are part of taxonomy. They are there because they are useful. They can designate a taxon succinctly. A name such as C. x crenulata is certainly better than Cliffortia crenata x unknown sp. This is all the more so in Cliffortia, where hybrids can be a precursor to speciation and can spread vegetatively and apomictically. If you go down the route of using descriptive formulae instead of names then why not apply that to all taxonomy and just do away with names - a name is not supposed to carry information. It is also far better for searching on - try googling a hybrid formula and you would end up with a mess of results compared with a hybrid name.
You are thinking like a taxonomist and not someone working in the field.
So I find a funny plant. There is Cliffortia pungens and there is Cliffortia ruscifolia. It is intermediate. I thus know and can identify it. It is simply Cliffortia pungens x ruscifolia.
To have to look up and remember Cliffortia x dissita is just silly. Especially when 95% of hybrids are never in any key. Nor are they included in field guides, in most conspecti and checklists. The name Cliffortia x dissita is obsolete and only of interest to one taxonomist every half century. The name Cliffortia pungens x ruscifolia is useful, pertinent, deductible, straightforward and does not require any additional knowledge, references, or obscure publications, or wracking one's brains to try and remember a 100% redundant name. That is even assuming that more than 10% of hybrids even have names (but they all have easily constructed hybrid formulae - even if one parent may have to remain "sp").
PS: I do agree with you for hybrids of unknown parentage: the a name is needed: For instance we can have 130 different hybrids with a parent of Cliffortia ruscifolia - calling them all Cliffortia ruscifolis x sp is meaningless.
But where parents are known ...
(just use the hybrid formula - why bother remembering 130 disconnected names just for Cliffortia ruscifolia hybrids).
"To have to look up and remember Cliffortia x dissita is just silly." But that applies to any name. We can just call something the Protea with a black furry bit in the middle. That's why we do taxonomy - if people cannot remember names in the field does that mean we should not bother with giving them names. In many groups it is impossible to name taxa in the field - so the names are redundant???
Names are also linked to types. That is important for stability. Cliffortia x intermedia has been known for over 100 years and still grows in the same vicinity. If the putative parentage changes, the formula changes, not so with a typified name. Search Cliffortia intermedia online and you will pull up historic references to the taxon. Search Cliffortia ilicifolia x ruscifolia online and you will find nothing related to the hybrid until page 100 of google if you are lucky!
But types are meaningless for hybrids. Hybrids and their backcrosses can do the full range from one parent to the other. So the concept of a "type" hybrid is meaningless. A hybrid is an intermediate between the two parent types. The hybrid type is irrelevant
Add a Comment