Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: Lawrence on December 20, 2016, 01:52:56 PM
-
Can anyone tell me if Campanula zoysii has now been reclassified as Favratia zoysii?
-
Seems to be, according to the Kew Plant list .. http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-366731 (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-366731)
I defer to Diane Clement on such matters as a rule - she is one smart cookie - so if she says so, I go with that.....
-
It is listed on the IUCN Redlist, theplantlist and hortipedia now as a synonym for Favratia. It seems that it is now in the monotypic genus Favratia. Here is another page that seems to hint that not everyone accepts the revision https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Favratia
-
The genus Favratia is really not supported by the molecular studies. See for example https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/253699.Park_et_alpdf (https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/253699.Park_et_alpdf) or https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kyeong-Sik_Cheon/publication/259553486_Phylogeny_of_Hanabusaya_(Campanulaceae)_a_Korean_endemic_based_on_ITS_sequences_of_nuclear_ribosomal_DNA/links/54ced31f0cf29ca810fcea83.pdf (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kyeong-Sik_Cheon/publication/259553486_Phylogeny_of_Hanabusaya_(Campanulaceae)_a_Korean_endemic_based_on_ITS_sequences_of_nuclear_ribosomal_DNA/links/54ced31f0cf29ca810fcea83.pdf)
The revision of campanulaceae of the plantlist is quite old nw (1999)
-
You'd feel a bit miffed if you got "NAS"'d for entering it in a section for Campanula at a Show! :o
;D
cheers
fermi
-
The Plant list is many times left behind new publications and not reliable as the only source for name changes. The Italians also kept is as C. zoysii.
http://www.actaplantarum.org/flora/flora_info.php?id=1549&pid=-1&p=1 (http://www.actaplantarum.org/flora/flora_info.php?id=1549&pid=-1&p=1)
For unresolved/in revision case the name to use can be a personal choice; when in doubt you can write the species with both: name, followed by (the most) accepted synonim.
-
You'd feel a bit miffed if you got "NAS"'d for entering it in a section for Campanula at a Show! :o
;D
cheers
fermi
I know Fermi very miffed!!!! Hence the question really
-
When the same scenario occurred with Trachelium/Campanula asperuloides both were accepted for a while at, least for AGS shows. This changed when the 2013 AGS Exhibitor's Newsletter expressly stated that plants would no longer be accepted in Campanula classes.
Despite this some were and although incorrect labeling does not in itself lead to an NAS, if they are no longer eligible for the specific class entered, it does. As Fermi says this is really only an issue with Campanula and Campanulaceae excluding Campanula classes. However it does show a lack of attention to detail when the correct name has been specifically brought to the attention of exhibitors. Although a recent AGS article by Robert Rolfe stated that Campanula zoysii has now been transferred to Favratia there has been no specific warning to exhibitors so I feel both would be accepted at the moment. I think this situation would be specific to AGS shows as SRGC exhibitors could not be deemed to have read an AGS Exhibitor's Newsletter unless they were also an AGS exhibitor.
-
the Campanula phylogeny is such a mess that they shouldn't be so strict with including or excluding some species from the Campanula classes.
The genus Campanula is really not monophylletic, many many genus are still included in the campanula tree. Exluding Trachelium from Campanula or accepting Fravratia would lead to restrict the true campanula to few species. Beeing too laxed with the definition of campanula genus would lead to merge some well know genus (Legousia, Phyteuma, Adenophora... ) in Campanula...
Have a look at these phylogenic trees : http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050076 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050076)
-
Whilst this may well be true it is only one of many occasions where species switch genera. Very few exhibitors are botanists and we are guided/instructed by show directors and committees as to what is their interpretation of recent developments so as not to make the whole thing unworkable.
-
And, for show purposes, in which class would you bench Brian Burrow's Cantata - a C. pulla x C. zoysii hybrid?
-
My own personal opinion is that C zoysii will still be a Campanula at AGS shows for the time being, never does to be too hasty with these taxonomic pronouncements! Unless of course those with greater knowledge persuade me otherwise.
Martin, unless I'm being dumb a Campanula x Campanula is still a Campanula but would not be eligible in a class which specifies species only or a geographic class, unless of course it is a natural hybrid.
I'll probably regret dipping my toe in this water :P
-
Yes Martin R but if zoysii is regarded as Favratia then Cantata becomes a bigeneric hybrid and as such wouldn't be eligible for Campanula or Campanulaceae excluding Campanula classes (because of the pulla side). Are you of the opinion that either name is acceptable in the short term or just Campanula?
-
My opinion is that, for the moment, it is still Campanula which gets rid of all the other complications and allows my head to stay firmly buried in the bucket of sand for at least a year ;)
-
That's essentially all that is necessary. A lot of switches are subject to different opinions even among botanists. All we need are the judgments of those in positions of authority to which we may adhere.
-
Name changes only apply if the majority of people take notice, I don,t.
-
But does that mean for example that you still regard Androsace alpina as Androsace glacialis or Androsace vandellii as Androsace argentea? Surely after a name change has been more or less universally accepted for a reasonable period, then it should not be referred to by it's former name.
-
But does that mean for example that you still regard Androsace alpina as Androsace glacialis or Androsace vandellii as Androsace argentea? Surely after a name change has been more or less universally accepted for a reasonable period, then it should not be referred to by it's former name.
It's very much a personal thing Paul for the many of us who have no interest in showing their plants. For example Polyxena is now in Lachenalia which I personally think is barmy and hence I won't be changing my labels. Similarly all my Ipheion labels remain rather than my changing them to Tristagma. My way of a poke in the eye for the 'experts', but I don't expect them to be worried about what I do and I'm not particularly bothered about what they do.
-
I accept that David but I do know that Lawrence raised the original query specifically from the point of the plant's showing eligibility. We discussed the matter at the AGS AGM in November whilst considering whether to buy the plant in question. In the end we both bought one.
-
The names I use are the names that were current when I was learning about wild flowers, many years ago. (I am still a student in the outdoor university).I am not, nor do I wish to be, an Academic. That is a different world to mine. As far as I know much of the recent rush to change the names of wildlife is probably the result of students working on their thesis. As long as their work follows the expected form and the results seem credible then they achieve their Phd. etc. This work is then used by others and quoted as fact. This can be mis-leading. I imagine that the time given for a student to carry out their field work and write it up, 3-4 years, can limit the amount of work carried out. I have come across students carrying out field work and wonder if their methods are the right ones. I think that they are a minority and their Tutors should keep them on the right track but this is perhaps not always possible. In many cases work is carried out in the field and laboratory by experienced and qualified people. There are limits to how much time is allowed for this work, costs etc. As an example, a student or qualified botanist is given the task to study bluebells in the UK, to decide if they are the native species or hybrids between our native bluebell and the introduced spanish bluebell. Note, I am using the English common names in case the Latin name has changed during writing this post. The person involved in the study is probably given a time limit for the field work, due to costs. It has to be decided where samples are taken from for DNA analysis. Are the samples (bulbs) taken from a wide area or lots of samples from a smaller area? This decision affects the results. In a very large wood there may be well in excess of a million bulbs. If only one per cent of bulbs are tested that will be 10,000 DNA tests. Too costly. How representative would be the result? If bulbs were collected throughout the country in smaller samples the results of DNA testing could well produce many different results due to soil type, climate at the different sites and other factors. If the results varied it would probably be concluded that bluebells in different parts of the UK, even if they were previously considered our native plants, are not exactly the same. If wild flowers are used in landscape schemes it is often said that they should come from another local source, so that they are of local stock. I think that this is to prevent introducing slightly different plants that look to the naked eye to be the same. Mowing a meadow and collecting the seed is a method of providing a local seed source for introducing local plants into an area being returned to nature. Many similar looking wild flowers, Hieraceum (Hawkweeds) for example are so alike that it takes an expert on that family to identify them to a species, or even worse, a sub species. Dandelions are another difficult family to identify. I think that this shows that Evolution is really happening and what we are seeing in a fairly short time scale, is a snap-shot in Evolution. DNA testing is a recent invention and was not used until modern times. If it was available two hundred years ago the name of our wild flowers would be fixed at that time. If DNA studies are carried out in different parts of the country on all forms of wildlife then it could be that all forms of wildlife in every part of the country are different. Just because a beetle in the south of England tests the same as one tested in the North of Scotland , does it mean that all beetles that look the same are the same, or is it coincidence that the samples tested were the same. To get back to Campanula zoisii, does it matter to the majority of people what the DNA test reveals about the ancestry or present condition of the plant. Is what it looks like compared to our long accepted name more important. Does it matter to growers and show judges what the DNA of the plant is or is the look of the shown plant more important. I think, for what it,s worth, that science should be the domain of scientists. To me, it is more important that wildlife be protected in their own habitats, than given a new name. A rose is a rose in any name.
-
'Much ado about nothing' springs to mind! Here is John Wright writing in his excellent book 'The Naming of the Shrew. A Curious History of Latin Names' - which is definitely worth anyone reading if they live in a world of Latin binomials: "Where the complexity of the natural world meets the fallibility of the human mind, tales of triumph and disaster, creation and confusion, honour and jealousy ensue. For the scientists and naturalists who create names, there is much to know, much to learn and so very much that can go wrong"! (my exclamation mark). E.J.Salisbury puts it more succinctly in 'The Living Garden' (written in 1935): "Words are wise men's counters: they do but reckon by them, but they are the money of fools" (from Hobbes). If I was the AGS I would simply subsume Favratia into Campanula and carry on as before!! Names are really just there for us to talk about the natural world in ways that we are able to comprehend - if they simply begin to obfuscate they lose any value - so changes require sufficient explanation and acceptance. But now I can't get that annoying Favratia out of my mind!!!
-
(There are some wonderful pictures of Campanula zoysii in the wild, by the way, shared by Jim Jermyn on Facebook...)
-
"If I was the AGS I would simply subsume Favratia into Campanula and carry on as before."
Which is exactly what we're doing.......amazing how fast our species can disappear up our own!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Ian, the DNA evidence clearly shows that Campanula zoysii is indeed a Campanula. Of course no method is infallible. The genus was originally proposed in 1890, but was not widely accepted. Why Favratia has ended up being resurrected is a bit mysterious (does anybody have the source?) but the scientific basis for it seems quite tenuous.
With regard to the number of DNA tests required, different bits of the genome change at different rates, so the DNA markers you would want to look at to measure differences among bluebells in a woodland would be very different to the markers you would look at to measure evolution in Hyacinthaceae, for example. Thus you don't need lots of samples to get a representative sequence.
Best, Tristan
-
"If I was the AGS I would simply subsume Favratia into Campanula and carry on as before."
Which is exactly what we're doing.......amazing how fast our species can disappear up our own!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know Martin, I must learn to keep my mouth shut, I never expected so much controversy 😳😳
-
I know Martin, I must learn to keep my mouth shut, I never expected so much controversy 😳😳
yeah, but what else are we going to do deep in the depths of December ???
-
Using the name "Bluebell" under this subject heading, on this forum is dangerous too ;-)
-
Oh god yes....
I need a drink!
-
Perhaps a look at Library singing flash mob Valladolid will lighten the mood? Look for it on your search engine.
-
That was a great suggestion, Ian - really enjoyed that, thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsPDY606Joo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsPDY606Joo)
-
Oh that is wonderful Ian :). Do you sing! It reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4dT8FJ2GE0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4dT8FJ2GE0) from the Icelandic group Árstídir - just the right thing in the right place.
-
Tim, I liked the Icelandic choir. Yes, I used to sing when I was young. I could do a fair impersonation of Buddy Holly. I was told by someone who teached music and was a semi-professional musician, that my voice was Baritone. Maybe this explains why I can,t sing in tune to church hymns? I have not sung for many years.
-
I'm completely tone-deaf (though I hum tunes a lot!) but it is just great to see people in harmony like this.