Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Bulbs => Bulbs General => Topic started by: Jim McKenney on November 04, 2008, 04:25:12 PM
-
EDIT by Maggi: I have moved these posts because I believe this discussion merits a thread of its own
It defintely looks like Notholirion thomsonianum.
Like all Notholirions it is monocarp. You should save seed and when it dies down you should look for side bulbils at the base. These need separating and growing on.
It is themost western species and not so much a woodlander as the other ones.
Good luck with it.
Göte
I think we should take a look at this concept monocarpic. Most older books describe Notholirion and Cardiocrinum as monocarpic. I say that that is a mistake. These plants are no more or less monocarpic than tulips, fritillaries and so many other bulbs.
I suspect confusion arises here because of uncertainty about just what it is which is described by the term monocarpic. I think the term monocarpic should be used to describe a taxon and definitely not used to describe a part of a plant (for instance, the flower or bulb).
It is the nature of most bulb taxa to form clonal aggregations. It is also the nature of bulbs (the structure, not the taxon) to disappear ( “die” or become subsumed into the surviving basal plate) after blooming. The tulip bulbs one digs in July are not the ones one planted in November.
In the case of all bulbs, the part which persists from year to year is the basal plate; this is the true perennial stem of the bulbous plant (to be distinguished from the annual stem which rises out of the ground to bear the flower and seed).
Plants such as Cardiocrinum and Notholirion do not die after blooming as a rule: new bulbs form on the basal plate to continue the life of the original plant.
As examples of truly monocarpic plants, I would cite (keeping in mind that in nature little if anything is a sure thing) Echium vulgare or Campanula thyrsoides.
Can anyone cite a bulbous taxon which is truly monocarpic?
-
This is a semantic question. To call them monocarp is common usage among those reasonably knowledgable.
A Tulipa does not need several years of build up again after flowering. What word should we use for those that behave like Notholirion, Agave Fourcreua and Cardiocrium ? ??? ???
The Notholirions I have been growing were definitely monocarp. There were zero bulbils at the base.
There seems to exist annual Bulbinellas but then we might get into semantics on what a bulbous subject is.
Fourcreua dies after flowering without any sidebulbs from the basal plate but a number of bulbils form in the inflorescense. Does this make it a perennial?
Göte.
PS
I am not aware that I have called a flower monocarp meaning the flower as such. However like most people I sometimes say flower when I mean the plant.
-
But because a bulb (Notholirion) died after flowering without forming new bulbils at the base, doesn't mean it's monocarpic. Maybe it just died and conditions prior to that event could have prevented it from forming new bulbils. I lose many plants after they flower, including some bulbs. That doesn't make them monocarpic, unles it is that plant's natural and inevitable habit to die after flowering, in every instance.
-
Exactly, Göte , it’s a semantic question. But wouldn’t you agree that semantic questions sometimes help clarify otherwise muddled issues? Who better than we to address it and help clarify it? We are the ones who know and grow the plants – we are the ones who know what is really happening.
I think this is worth pursing, if only because words should mean what they say, so-to-speak. There are plenty of examples in life where this is not the case, and that’s when thinking people (like you) should step up and help straighten things out. Like you, I frequently say “flower” when I mean plant, or say “bulb” when the subject in question is a corm or something else. And I think this is perfectly acceptable usage in many contexts.
But there are times when we want to be precise, and there are some of us who bristle at the idea of using a pompous word when the idea in question can be expressed in plain language unambiguously. Part of the problem with this word “monocarpic” is that not only is its meaning obscure to most non-botanists, but even among botanists the word is sometimes used carelessly. How many professional horticulturists and botanists have repeated over the years the fallacy that Cardiocrinum is monocarpic?
If I plant an acorn, allow it to grow and mature to blooming age, and then cut it down after it has bloomed, does that make it monocarpic? Of course not. If plants difficult in cultivation die after blooming, is that necessarily characteristic of the same plant in nature? Of course not. (While typing this, Leslie beat me to the punch here…)
The main problem I have with calling the plants in question monocarpic is that to do so makes the word monocarpic meaningless. ALL flowers (blossoms) fruit once only, if at all. If one were considering the flower (blossom) only, then some would argue that any plant might properly be called monocarpic. But to do so would remove any particular meaning from the term: if every entity in question is monocarpic, then what additional information is conveyed by saying that they are monocarpic?
It seems to me that “bulb” and “monocarpic” are incompatible concepts: “monocarpic bulb” is an oxymoron, and I would further state an oxymoron without any real world examples. It’s apparently true that some individual plants of Cardiocrinum and Notholirion do die without leaving offsets. But isn’t this more a reflection of the vigor of that particular plant than characteristic of most members of the same species?
This is the criterion I would use in deciding if a plant should be called monocarpic: if the majority of plants of that species die after setting seed without leaving vegetative reproduction, then the taxon is properly monocarpic.
Göte, you pointed out that tulips do not need several years to rebuild and bloom again after flowering. That’s true, but a tulip does need many years after germinating from seed to do so. It is during those early years that the life cycle of the tulip is comparable to that of Cardiocrinum and Notholirion such as N. thomsonianum. And for the same reasons, a Cardiocrinum offset is comparable to a tulip seedling of several years’ growth: it needs additional years before it blooms.
I urge everyone to give consideration to the role of the basal plate/perennial stem in these plants: it makes so many aspects of their life cycle so much easier to understand, and it helps to clarify our often muddled concepts about the nature of bulbs, corms and so on.
-
"I would first rectify the names" said the master (Kung Futze)
You take up a couple of subjects here but unfortunately you do not answer my question: What word to use instead? Nor wether you consider Fourcreua to be a perennial.
I checked with the literature I have available here and I find that the RHS dictionary as well as RHS Plants A to Z both call Notholirion and Cardiocrinum monocarp. This is obviously general usage when there is a need for brevity and brevity was my reason for using the word.
Many linguists would claim that usage defines the meaning. I use the word as meaning that the main plant dies after flowering. I am aware that there is a gray zone there. The Genera Digitalis and Meconopsis are hovering on the brink. In some strains of Meconopsis betonicifolia it is a toss up wether the plant will survive the first flowering or not. The determining factor seems to be wether the plant formed a side shoot in the year before the first flowering or not. The formation of a flowering shoot seems to prevent the formation of side shoots.
Notholirion and Cardiocrinum differ from their close relatives Lilium Nomocharis and Fritillaria by that the main bulb dies down completely after flowering but leaves daughter bulbs. These seem to form outside the main bulb not inside as in Lilium and the others. This has by some been considered a clue to how the lilies (in the wide meaning of the word) have developed. Acc to 'Lilies of the world' Notholirion forms the bulbils a year before flowering.
Now there are two schools as to usage of words.
#A:Those who classify some words as "pompous" and do not believe that the interested reader or listener can understand them.
#B: Those who believe that the public is intelligent and well informed enough to know or, failing knowledge at the moment, to learn.
I definitely belong to the latter school. I hold a high opinion about my fellow man. I think that one should use the best words that are available. To avoid using certain words is to kill them and to deplete the language - in my eyes a sin but many journalists seem to think that it be a virtue.
I do not think that a sexually produced Tulip seedling is comparable to an asexually produced bulbil. The point is that the tulip main bulb, inside and after formation of a flowering shoot, forms a new bulb as strong as the old one.
I certainly agree to that one should pay attention to the metamorphoses of plant parts. However, it leads us to problems sometimes. The true leaves of Trilliums seem to be the cataphylls that stay underground whereas the greenery on the thing that emerges from the soil seems to be bracts. Nevertheless i think mos of us call it leaves. Half of the six colourful protuberances that make up a lily flower are not petals so many use the word tepal instead.
With the best regards from
your bristlingly pompous friend
Göte
PS
I forgot to put ;) when referring to my bad results with Notholirion. I do not believe that oaks are monocarp.
-
Göte, please, I used the word bristle to refer to myself, and I used the word pompous to refer to a word, not a person. The world I live in is noisy with pompous words; and in order to get by and function in that world, I use pompous words, too. I don’t consider myself to be pompous for doing so, and I certainly did not mean to imply that you or any other person deserved that description for so doing. If I misled you to think otherwise, please accept my apology.
You wrote “Fourcreua dies after flowering without any sidebulbs from the basal plate but a number of bulbils form in the inflorescence. Does this make it a perennial?” This confused me at first: the word looked like Fouquieria, but that didn't make much sense in terms of this discussion. Then I realized you meant the agave relative Furcraea; that is what you meant, isn't it? If, as you say, it forms little somethings (which are not seeds) in the inflorescence which go on to produce new plants, then yes, it is a perennial. Compare what happens in the common tiger lily: there are bulbils in the leaf axils which vegetatively propagate the plant. No one disputes that the tiger lily is perennial.
You ask what word should be used to describe the plants in question. They are simply perennial flowering plants: one of the points I am trying to make is that the only peculiar thing about their life cycle is that they do not flower every year. Otherwise, what happens in Cardiocrinum (which as you note is almost universally described as being monocarpic) is little different than what happens in a garden tulip (which I have never seen described as monocarpic).
The illusion that Cardiocrinum is monocarpic arises from a misunderstanding of the life cycle of the plant, a misunderstanding of the anatomy of the plant.
The Cardiocrinum in my garden have been through three blooming cycles. I started with one bulb. The plants I have now are pieces of the seedling which germinated who knows how many years ago and grew into that first bulb I obtained. They are a clone, a clone which has been in my garden for a decade. They are undoubtedly perennial.
Did my first Cardiocrinum “die” after it bloomed? Do my tulips “die” after they bloom? The answer in both cases is NO. The plant persists as a perennial. To be sure, in both cases, the bulbs I see now are not the bulbs I planted: the only part of the bulbs I planted which survives is part of the basal plate/perennial stem.
With respect to your “two schools as to usage of words”, I would place myself in both schools as the circumstances demand. I am not an unintelligent person, and I can fairly describe myself as someone very interested in words, yet I sometimes encounter words which I do not understand, words which, frankly, make no sense to me. These are, typically, words which are being used incorrectly or words being used to hide something.
For instance, if you go to your psychiatrist and tell him "I'm afraid of spiders", he might then tell you that you suffer from arachnophobia. All he has done is to translate your English into medical neo-Greek. This in turn gives the patient the impression that there is something more to this arachnophobia than a simple fear of spiders. There is more: a big fat bill for having done nothing productive. Very many people are easily cowed by this sort of thing.
Trusting the public to learn strikes me as a dubious proposition. There was a time, a long time, when people believed that whales were fish and that the world was flat. These beliefs were held by persons who were neither unintelligent nor poorly informed. They knew as much as their circumstances allowed. How often have you heard someone call a spider an insect, or a rabbit a rodent, or a swift a swallow?
Is our role in life to point them in the right direction, or is it right to stand back and snicker at their ignorance? It seems to me that we all benefit when ambiguities are challenged. There is nothing new or unusual about “the authorities” being wrong.
A well- informed and intelligent public is a thing much to be desired; but I think you will admit that the extent to which this is realized varies enormously from place to place. I hold the potential of my fellow man in high opinion; but it is hard not to observe frequent failures to attain that potential. People like big words, in particular big words which other people do not understand. That they themselves do or do not understand the words is irrelevant.
Göte, when you write “I think that one should use the best words that are available. To avoid using certain words is to kill them and to deplete the language” I could not agree more. I’m not trying to avoid the use of the word monocarpic: I’m urging people to use it accurately.
-
No apology needed (from your side). I could not resist making the wrong inference thereby poking you a little. ;D
I would never claim that Lilium lancifolium is no perennial – but this is because the main bulb survives until the next year – just as it (hopefully) does on lilies that normally have no bulbils.
As I see it, the question boils down to the definition of a plant. I find it impractical to call a clone a plant. If I strike two cuttings from the same shrub, they grow into two specimen in different parts of the garden and I kill one of them, I say that I killed that shrub. I do not say that it is alive because the other shrub is not killed.
I also think that this leads to strange results if we apply your reasoning to other areas. Consider identical twins! And apomictic annuals.
Obviously the general public HAS learnt since most of them no longer believe that the earth is flat. I agree that most of the general public would not know nor care to learn what the word ‘monocarp’ means but those who read this forum are not the general public. They have a special area of interest and I believe that 99% would know or want to learn.
By the way I find it natural that people call a rabbit a rodent since they actually WERE classed in Rodentia earlier.
We all use Latin names for our plants. Not because we want to show off our knowledge but because this enables us to communicate in a meaningful way. The Doctors I know (Why is everybody using the word Doctor for MDs? There are many kinds of doctors), use technical terms to those they believe will understand and try to express themselves simply when talking to the uninitiated.
Someone with Arachnophobia is not afraid of spiders. He is pathologically afraid and probably has a syndrome of various symptoms that makes it meaningful to use a more exact word. Physicians use neogreek or latin words for the same reasons as we do. I.e. in order to signify a more narrow and better defined meaning than the vernacular allows. Also in order to be better understood internationally. How many of your non-native-english-speaking readers know what a swift is?
Authorities are surprisingly often wrong about facts but the definition of a word cannot be wrong. The meanings of words are definitions that we assign to them by fiat. If most botanists call Cardiocrinum monocarp (or hapaxant) this is what they are. Sometimes the words may be misleading and I agree that this is not a good thing. However I do not think that this applies here. The word adequately describes the lifecycle of that genus. That they may survive as side bulbs is added information of in my view somewhat lesser significance.
I do not think that we are likely to agree on this but it is an interesting discussion.
Have anice weekend
Göte
-
Göte, I just typed out a two page response to your last posting, and then a little voice whispered to me “Jim, you’re going to put them to sleep; you and Göte obviously do not speak the same philosophical language.”
With that in mind, let me try a different approach. If Cardiocrinum is monotypic, please explain to me why Tulipa is not.
-
Sleep? That's the last thing I'll do ..... keep it up, please, great to have a wordy thread 8)
-
Surely haxapanth?
-
No, Rob, it's hapaxanth in English, hapaxant in some other languages.
It's from the classical Greek adverb απαξ (I have not figured out how to do the rough breathing sign) which means once + the neo-Latin combining form anth- for flower.
The only other place I've encountered this is in the term hapax legomenon. Does anyone cite other uses in English?
-
This is a very satisfying discussion, keep it going, my friends! :D
-
As I see it, the question boils down to the definition of a plant. I find it impractical to call a clone a plant. If I strike two cuttings from the same shrub, they grow into two specimen in different parts of the garden and I kill one of them, I say that I killed that shrub. I do not say that it is alive because the other shrub is not killed.
Some definitions are both imprecise & context dependent. I recall an article some years ago in the RHS Journal (I think) on the largest plant in the world. The answer was one of the common daffodil cultivars, either 'King Alfred' or 'Carlton' (can't remember which). In this context both the question & the answer (if correct) make perfect sense. In the case of your example, Gote, it is reasonable to say that one plant no longer exists.
Authorities are surprisingly often wrong about facts but the definition of a word cannot be wrong. The meanings of words are definitions that we assign to them by fiat. If most botanists call Cardiocrinum monocarp (or hapaxant) this is what they are.
Agreed that definitions cannot be wrong but the application/use of a term (if it has an unambiguous definition) can be. The flowers of anemones are not zygomorphic & no amount of discussion or argument can make them so.
These questions are essentially philosophical not empirical. By the way, I know nothing about Cardiocrinum!
-
Thanks, Gerry. In the two-page post I decided not to send, I used exactly that example of the largest plant. As I recall, it was the daffodil Carlton at that time.
-
Weird! I was just looking at that article yesterday while going through my back copies - it was indeed 'Carlton'.
-
With that in mind, let me try a different approach. If Cardiocrinum is monotypic, please explain to me why Tulipa is not.
Hang on, Jim, surely you don't mean monotypic ???? If you did, then I'm going to get confused.... for me, "monotypic" refers to a plant which is a opne of a kind type.... as in " a monotypic genus" such as Pteridophyllum racemosum or Ginko biloba (shown in its glorious golden autumn foliage elswhere in this Forum) for instance?????
-
Whoops! Thank you for catching this, Maggi.
Of course, I meant monocarpic.
-
A word can certainly be used in the wrong way but if a majority of specialists in a field use it in one way this is the meaning of the word in that field.
I have seen - and quoted - examples that say that Cardiocrinum is monocarp. Some literature give Agave americana as a typical monocarp species.
I have seen nobody except Jim who claims otherwise. Excuse me Jim but what is your authority to say that the authors of these publications are wrong?
Those who use the word for Cardiocrinum and Agave (including myself) are well aware that Cardiocrinum and Agave also propagate by offsets. We are not mistaken about the behavior of the plant (that would have been a basis for saying that the word is wrongly used) and that behavious is precisely what we mean by the word. Therefore the reference to Carlton (which I also saw some years ago) is beside the point. It is also a doubtful statement - something that every identical twin would tell you.
Göte
-
This is interesting, i dont know how i missed this thread. :o
It makes me think and i also agree with you. If one say that an agave is monocarpic, and what about the tiny offsets it leaves after blooming?? Since they are genetically identical to the mother plant, they can be somehow considered as the same plant, because its genome is still living, and so on... Here rises a problem of individuality, on most animals its simple to define it, but with plants, well... :-X
Here in madeira we have lots of truely monocarpic plants (of course none of them is bulbous), in wich the indivudual totally dies after blooming, leaving no part of it's genome alive after it sets seed. Examples like Musschia wollastonii, Melanoselinum decipiens (that i already had shown in other post i didi), the famous Geranium maderense, all of them live for a couple of years and then dies after a spectacular display of blooms... I also think that these are truely monocarpic species, whereas Agave is not, because it "still lives" after blooming... But still its difficult to say something, as they mostly define monocarpic as "something that dies out after blooming". Even annual plants behave like this...
-
the reference to Carlton (which I also saw some years ago) is beside the point. It is also a doubtful statement - something that every identical twin would tell you.
The fact that we do not conventionally regard identical twins as one individual has little bearing on whether in some particular context we should regard 'Carlton' as one plant. In the traditional English (Christian) view of marriage, husband & wife were regarded as one person - "of one flesh" - a view which had important legal consequences. The United States of America is regarded in many contexts as one country despite the fact that its constituent parts are separated by large areas of land or water. Likewise the United Kingdom. Questions about individuality have been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries & there are no easy or universal answers. Decisions have to be made for every particular case. In the context of the Garden Centre, every bulb of 'Carlton' is a distinct individual & one pays accordingly.
-
A word can certainly be used in the wrong way but if a majority of specialists in a field use it in one way this is the meaning of the word in that field.
I have seen - and quoted - examples that say that Cardiocrinum is monocarp. Some literature give Agave americana as a typical monocarp species.
I have seen nobody except Jim who claims otherwise. Excuse me Jim but what is your authority to say that the authors of these publications are wrong?
Göte, let's look at this discussion as if it were an argument in the formal logical sense (as indeed it is).
In terms of logic, your appeals to authority confuse what some philosophers distinguish as the contexts of discovery and the contexts of justification. That is to say, the source of an idea (whether from a Nobel Prize winner or a raving lunatic) has no bearing on the validity (in the logical sense) of that idea.
The idea has to stand or fall on its own merits.
I believe that you have yet to make the case that this one can stand on its own merits.
-
It seems to me that this discussion is persistently confusing matters of fact with matters of logic. Having criticised Gote, I now have to say, Jim, that your reference to the distinction made by Karl Popper is beside the point. If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic is a purely empirical question; logic is neither here nor there. In this context 'an appeal to authority' while neither completely decisive nor entirely rational is a normal practice in science. Strictly speaking, almost every experiment in physiology is a test of the "laws" of physics but is not conventionally so regarded (though over the course of time some particular experiment might come to be so regarded). There is a necessary element of pragmatism in science &, put crudely, it is generally accepted that some people know more about some things than other people. On the other hand, if there is no agreement about the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then there can be no meaningful discussion, hence no disagreement about any particular plant. Of course, spurious discussions of this kind have been by no means uncommon in the history of science; the debate about 'species' after Darwin would be one example.
-
If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic is a purely empirical question; logic is neither here nor there.
Gerry, it seems to me that your "if" says it all. I agree with your "if" statement, but it's irrelevent. Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem.
If one authority gives as the meaning of monocarpic what happens in Echium, and another authority gives as its meaning what happens in Cardiocrinum,
-
Sorry, I dropped my keyboard in the throes of composing that last post and it got sent inadvertantly.
I'll post the finsihed version soon.
-
And as you can see, it wasn't spell checked either!
-
Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem.
If one authority gives as the meaning of monocarpic what happens in Echium, and another authority gives as its meaning what happens in Cardiocrinum,
Jim - I should probably wait for your completed post but I wish to go off & restore my mind by listening to Haydn (I daresay you'll understand). However, if things are as you state then I can only repeat that there is no basis for discussion, hence no basis for disagreement. 'Monocarpic' has more than one meaning just as 'species' did (& does).
-
If there is agreement on the meaning of the term 'Monocarpic' then the question of whether a plant is or is not monocarpic is a purely empirical question;
Gerry, it seems to me that your "if" says it all. I agree with your "if" statement, but it's irrelevant. Why are you introducing this hypothetical world in which there is agreement on the meaning of the term "monocarpic"? There is no such agreement. That is part of the problem. And since there is no such agreement, appeals to authorities will not solve the problem.
To use your approach, Cardiocirnum is monotypic according to the subset of authorities who have commented on Cardiocrinum. But is Cardiocrinum monotypic according to the greater set of authorities who have commented on the topic monocarpy across the spectrum of plant life?
Let's try to keep the discussion simple. Let's hope more people are interested in this than that presumably small set of readers who are already familiar with the work of Karl Popper. If monocarpic means "the plant dies after setting seed", then Cardiocrinum is not monocarpic. I think we both agree that the argument involving the meaning of the word "individual' is a red herring.
If Cardiocrinum means something else, then perhaps Cardiocrinum is monocarpic. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and see if I can do a reductio ad absurdum with an alternative meaning. Let's say for this purpose that monocarpic does not mean "the plant dies after setting seed" but instead it means "the main sprout of the plant dies after setting seed".
Here's how it will go:
Is Cardiocrinum monocarpic according to this alternate definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Is Lilium monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Is Tulipa monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because the main sprout dies after setting seed.
Are all north temperate bulbs monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because their main sprouts die after setting seed.
Are [fill in the blank with thousands of other taxa] monocarpic according to this alternative definition?
Yes, because their main sprouts die after setting seed.
Need more?
What about plants which do not have an obvious main stem? Are they monocarpic, too?
All ovaries set seed only once if that; they are all monocarpic.
So, all plants have something about them which is monocarpic?
Yes, all plants have monocarpic ovaries.
So, all plants are monocarpic?
We got into this mess because, on the one hand, there is something about Cardiocrinum which reminds us of the behavior of truly monocarpic plants: one year there is a big bloom stalk which sets seed and the next year it is gone. It will not do to say that the main stem is monocarpic; the main, annual stem of all of our familiar garden monocots behaves the same way.
It seems to me that we have two choices: either Cardiocrinum is not monocarpic, or it is and so too are all other related genera.
I opt for the former.
After writing the above, I went back and read your most recent post, Gerry. Let's agree that although monocarpic might have more than one meaning, the usage of the word should be consistent, especially when applied to closely related plants.
Haydn sounds delightful right about now.
And I hope everyone got a good look at the full moon this evening: the biggest of the year.
-
This thread seems to have developed into a botanical version of Zeno's Paradox.
Perhaps quoting part of the judgement in Elton John's recent libel case would help: "It is common ground that the meaning of words, in law as in life, depends upon their context."
Surely, just as one accepts that the pronunciation of a Latin name should be such that one's audience recognises the plant in question, one also accepts that the definition of monocarpic depends upon the context in which it is placed.
-
.............. oh God, life's too short! ;D
-
.............. oh God, life's too short! ;D
David - this is one of the things that keeps us young!
-
This thread seems to have developed into a botanical version of Zeno's Paradox.
Perhaps quoting part of the judgement in Elton John's recent libel case would help: "It is common ground that the meaning of words, in law as in life, depends upon their context."
Surely, just as one accepts that the pronunciation of a Latin name should be such that one's audience recognises the plant in question, one also accepts that the definition of monocarpic depends upon the context in which it is placed.
Rob, with respect to your quotation from Elton John, if that's the case, then what do you think the term monocarpic means when applied to Cardiocrinum? Is one free to apply one meaning of monocarpic to one plant of Cardiocrinum and another meaning of monocarpic to a different plant of Cardiocrinum? Is one free to apply one meaning of the word monocarpic to Cardiocrinum and another meaning of the word monocarpic to its liliaceous relatives?
My point in this discussion is not simply that the word monocarpic does not describe what happens in Cardiocrinum. Equally important is the belief that what happens in Cardiocrinum is not different from what happens in Tulipa, Lilium, Fritillaria and other related plants.
Call it monocarpic if you will, but acknowledge that what happens in related genera is similar (i.e. that the annual stem dies after setting seed) and to my knowledge these are never called monocarpic.
With respect to your comment about pronunciation, how is that different than saying "surely, the identification of a plant should be such that one's audience recognizes the plant in question". If I'm giving a presentation to a garden club, am I obligated to use identifications from the least common denominator pool? Should I eschew botanical names in favor of vernacular names?
Let's see, perhaps I'll talk about bluebells in all their unrelated diversity. Never mind that some are monocots, some are dicots, some are from the Northern Hemisphere, some are from the Southern Hemisphere and that they are drawn from varied botanical families.
In my experience, confusion about the identity of a plant rarely arises because of the way the name is pronounced except, ironically, in the case of the shortest, simplest words. Long, Graecoroman botanical names are likely to be recognized regardless of how they are pronounced: any educated listener makes the mental adjustments necessary to comprehend. The proof of this comes when someone criticizes one's pronunciation: they know very well what word one is saying!
One final comment to help keep everything in perspective. My bed time reading the night before last was from the Cambridge County Geographies series, this time the one on Somerset. This was published in 1909, and contains the remarkable assertion (to me, anyway) "But what most of all distinguishes the inhabitants of the two regions [eastern and western halves of Somerset] is the difference in dialect...The difference is so marked that a man from the east side of the county has a decided difficulty in understanding a man from the west side of the Parrett...]
I assume radio- and television-speak has largely replaced those differences by now.
Evidently, to paraphrase GBS, it's not just England and America which have been separated by a common language.
-
.............. oh God, life's too short! ;D
I have not joined in but have enjoyed the thread. It is clearly going nowhere but is raising interesting points on how plants grow.
David
I would add your comment to your primula thread on showing, lifes to short to spend the whole of saturdays at a plant show week after week. but I suppose we all enjoy our hobby each in our own way.
-
Jim and Gerry,
A word is a symbol for something. The only way to define the connection between the word and the something is by a kind of at least partial consensus. In English we usually connect the word 'Horse' with a four legged animal that we can use for riding or put in front of a carriage. There is no internal logical justification for this. We do not claim that the five letters symbolise the four legs and one tail or that the word sounds like the animal. The usage is a result of consensus within a group that finds it practical to have a word for the animal in question (and have based their consensus on previous usage). This consensus is not necessarily universal. I call it 'Häst' in my group.
When we deal with words mainly used by a subgroup, (or used by the subgroup in a specific way) it is the consensus within that subgroup that defines the meaning of the word. Any physicist will tell you that the use of up down etc on quarks (as the word quark itself) is an entirely arbitrary choice. This use of up and down is very much different from the use in other contexts (also quark which is the word for cottage cheese in some languages). However this does not make the word wrong when used by the physicists. When we are discussing the M-word the relevant subgroup is the botanists. It is thus highly relevant to ask for authorities.
As far as I can see, you have not yet quoted any botanic authority whatsoever, who definitely is using the M-word in your meaning of the word. You have only tried to elude that question.
As far as I understand, de Candolle was the first to use the M-word and on page 437 of ‘Introduction à l’etude de la botanique...' printed 1835 he gives Agave as one of the examples. Somehow I think that someone who invents a word for something should be the first authority for the use of the word and that 173 years of usage has relevance.
If we are going to be philosophic about this and call Karl Popper to our help, I would like to quote Bertrand Russel: " when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;" My belief is that this also is true for usage.
I might be accused of being a Zen-philosopher (you are right my philosophy is different from yours) but I think that all of us who has grown Cardiocrinum and Lilium know the difference between the two. A Lilium does not start from scratch after having flowered - it is a simple as that.
By the way I find it slightly surprising that you – as you have done in previous posts - assume that botanists and I base our use of words on mistakes about factual circumstances such as the life cycle of Cardiocrinum and Notholirion. In my opinion it is better to assume others to be knowledgeable – sometimes they are you know.
All the best
Göte
-
.............. oh God, life's too short! ;D
I have not joined in but have enjoyed the thread. It is clearly going nowhere but is raising interesting points on how plants grow.
David
I would add your comment to your primula thread on showing, lifes to short to spend the whole of saturdays at a plant show week after week. but I suppose we all enjoy our hobby each in our own way.
You are right of course Tony.
-
I would add your comment to your primula thread on showing, lifes to short to spend the whole of saturdays at a plant show week after week. but I suppose we all enjoy our hobby each in our own way.
In the SRGC we only have two non-competitive shows , six Scottish shows and the two joint shows with AGS to occupy our Saturdays.... that's only ten chances a year to show what our hobby is all about to a wider public and meet up with loads of gardening chums........ and since I, for one, have never yet managed to attend ALL those events in one year.... I'm not going to stop trying yet!! 8)
-
Been there done it for years until sanity took over,ten great gardening days in spring lost,still if you have chums maybe its okay.........
-
Been there done it for years until sanity took over,ten great gardening days in spring lost,still if you have chums maybe its okay.........
Well, YOU'VE got ME, Tony!! :-*
-
Göte, thank you for bearing with me on this. I'm in full agreement with the first paragraph of your most recent post. But from there on we have our differences.
This discussion has branched off into so many directions that the core points of relevance have become obscured. For me, this discussion is not really about how words acquire their meaning. For me, it is not about historical precedence, appeals to authorities or arcane philosophy.
I raised this issue because I believe (and nothing I have read in this thread has weakened my conviction one bit) the this word monocarpic is not being used properly. And to my way of thinking, an important part of "properly" is that all instances of the same phenomenon should receive the same name.
Let me first see if I can point out a weakness in something you wrote. You wrote: "As far as I understand, de Candolle was the first to use the M-word and on page 437 of ‘Introduction à l’etude de la botanique...' printed 1835 he gives Agave as one of the examples. Somehow I think that someone who invents a word for something should be the first authority for the use of the word and that 173 years of usage has relevance. "
Although that is a thing much to be desired, let me give an example of how real world circumstances can make that point of view a source of confusion and even error. Taxonomists of the past typically based their species and other taxa on morphological characteristics. Modern biology on the other hand recognizes the sexually interbreeding population as the salient characteristic of a true species.
The old time taxonomists are the authority (for purposes of nomenclature ) for the names they established. They understood these taxa in morphological terms: in other words, if the morphology fit, then the entity in question was a member of their taxon.
If a species has a type location, we can often identify with reasonable certainly the population from which the type material was drawn. And if, in addition, it turns out that on the one hand the population in the type location seems to be contained and on the other hand other similar entities with the purportedly defining morphological characteristics are not interbreeding with it, then there is reason to treat these as separate species.
That means that the taxonomist who originally described the taxon on a morphological basis (and who remains the authority for the name for purposes of nomenclature) really did not understand what he had created. His concept of the species (the "word") was wrong.
The rules of nomenclature do not require that a name be trashed simply because the taxonomist who validly published it did not know what he or she was doing. We keep the name but we redefine it so that it agrees with what is happening in the real world.
I do not have a copy of de Candolle's work at hand. Perhaps you can answer a question or two about what de Candolle knew or did not know. For instance, was de Candolle aware that the agave does not always die after flowering and setting seed?
If de Candolle does not make it clear that he understood that, then that calls into question his understanding of the life cycle of the agave.
What de Candolle knew is important to this discussion. If de Candolle believed that the agave dies after blooming and setting seed, and therefore should be described as monocarpic, then the fact that we in modern times know that the agave does not always die does not change what de Candolle knew. He just chose a bad example.
If one wants to assert that monocarpic in de Candolle's sense must agree with what happens with an agave, (as if, so-to-speak, agave is the type species for the meaning of the word monocarpic) then that de Candolle knew or did not know that agave does not necessarily die after fruiting becomes irrelevant.
On the other hand, if de Candolle did not know that agave sometimes survives after fruiting, then that raises the question that de Candolle himself might have applied the term incorrectly.
The concept behind the word clone is perhaps ancient; but the word itself did not come into use until the late nineteenth century I think. De Candolle might very well have considered each agave rosette to be an individual (again, that difficult word) plant. We now know otherwise.
Isn't the common-sense meaning of word monocarpic "the plant dies after fruiting"?
And isn't the background theme in this discussion really about whether plants propagated as clones represent one or more than one plant?
It makes no sense to call plants which fruit more than once monocarpic. And Cardiocrinum have the capacity to fruit multiple times over a span of many years.
In each case, the primary bud on the perennial stem of the plant fruits only once. But I believe that is true of all monocots.
Göte, for me the primary point of this discussion is not to resolve how people use the word monocarpic. The point is to get people to realize that what happens in Cardiocrinum or Agave or in numerous bromeliads is scarcely to be distinguished (the time span involved is the primary difference) from what happens in Tulipa, Lilium or Fritillaria. And does anyone call those monocarpic?
Let monocarpic mean what you want it to mean, but apply it consistently.
-
Isn't the common-sense meaning of word monocarpic "the plant dies after fruiting"?
Sadly, too often the phrase would be "the plant dies after flowering"... since there are so many occasions when no seed is set ..... :'(
-
Jim and Gerry,
Gote - obviously I have not made myself clear. I have no views on whether Cardiocrinum is or is not monocarpic. My posts were concerned with the philosophical issues, implicit or explicit, in your exchanges (i.e., the form of your arguments) & I found problems with the way both of you argued your respective cases.
-
Jim and Gerry,
My posts were concerned with the philosophical issues, implicit or explicit, in your exchanges (i.e., the form of your arguments) & I found problems with the way both of you argued your respective cases.
Argued, Gerry? Who said we are finished? ::)
Göte, since Gerry does not seem to approve of the way we have conducted ourselves, why don't we start again? Now that we know that Gerry's primary interest in this is argument form, let's start again and try to keep to form.
To get things started again, I'll offer an if...then statement for consideration as the initial volley from which we can procede (if either of you would like to offer an alternative, I'll gladly withdraw mine).
Here it is:
If by the term "monocarpic plant" we mean a plant which dies after blooming and setting seed, then Jim's position is that Cardiocrinum is not monocarpic.
Let's see where things go now.
-
Jim, I do not understand.
Do you mean that you do agree with my first but not with my second paragraph?
If so, do you mean that the particle physicists all use their words incorrectly? They would no doubt be grateful to know that.
Yes! Of course the question is how words get their meaning. Unless we determine how they get their meaning, it is impossible to say that a meaning is wrong or right. There must be some kind of basis for any statement that we are supposed to take seriously.
You say that the meaning of the M-word as used by the experts is wrong. Then you have to show that. What you have shown until now is that you use the M-word in different way than I do. It is also different from usage in ALL Botanical and gardening literature I have consulted.
Carl von Linné (to use the proper name when not writing in Latin) called Hepatica nobilis Anemone hepatica. Later botanists have come to the conclusion that it should not be in the genus Anemone and it has been renamed Hepatica nobilis. This does not mean that the first name in any way was wrong. It was correct within the framework of AD.1753. It is even still today correct (but not very practical) to write Anemone hepatica if we add an ‘L’ after it. The new name is right now because it follows the consensus of the experts today.
You are not many enough to form a consensus among the experts. Thus I ask you to show the authority behind your claim.
I repeat that it is not really productive to assume that other people are ignorant. ESPECIALLY NOT IN THEIR OWN FIELD. I suggest that onus to prove whether de Candolle did know enough about Agave or not, lies on you. You are the person who says that the experts and I are wrong. You can find his works on the net using Google. I used (http://www.archive.org/details/introductionltu02candgoog) Personally I find it likely that someone with his background would know very well that Agave proliferates by underground runners since it is so obvious.
This is, however, beside the point. If he invents the word and gives examples of what he means by that word, these examples ARE what he means by the word.
To say that de Candolle did not know the meaning of a word he invented himself is to my mind not quite quite ..... Are you certain your name is Jim?? And besides is not your birth date hearsay?
I would like to call the attention to Demokritos. He stated that the world is build from small particles that cannot be divided. These he called atoms = indivisibles. I have read in many places that he was wrong since we can split atoms. This does not make him wrong at all. It makes us wrong since it was we who erroneously used his word on the wrong particles. He must have meant quarks. He defined atoms as particles that are so small that they cannot be divided. If such particles exist (as we believe) he was right. It is just that some people used his word on the wrong particles.
In the same way: if de Candolle calls plants that after flowering must start from scratch, as Agave and Cardiocrinum do, monocarp he is right and you Jim are wrong.
It is not quite meaningful for me or you to define the word monocarpic. I am no an expert and you are not many enough. I am quite happy to use the word it is usually used.
Gerry,
I am insufficiently bright to understand what you mean by objecting to the form. I was unaware that we needed to stick to a form on this forum. I merely wanted to point out that we consider identical twins as two individuals even Siamese twins. We do that in spite of the common genome. A common genome does thus not necessarily make several physically separate entities the same individuum.
Göte
-
Guys this is the most fascinating debate I have one question and one request.
Question:- when you have come to a conclusion who will tell the plants?
Request:- can you then have a similar debate on the described bulbs, corms and tubers?
-
Gerry,
I am insufficiently bright to understand what you mean by objecting to the form. I was unaware that we needed to stick to a form on this forum. I merely wanted to point out that we consider identical twins as two individuals even Siamese twins. We do that in spite of the common genome. A common genome does thus not necessarily make several physically separate entities the same individuum.
Göte
Gote - Before bowing out of this discussion I would like to make two points.
1. Having read some of your other posts on complex technical issues, I find it difficult to take at face value your claim that you are “insufficiently bright” to understand what I mean. To summarise: I found the arguments presented by both yourself & Jim unconvincing as arguments, i.e., as forms of reasoning.
2. I have never claimed that a common genome necessarily makes several physically distinct entities into a single individual. My Garden Centre example made exactly this point. The whole thrust of my argument by example is that these matters are context dependent & there are no universal criteria.
-
I suggest that onus to prove whether de Candolle did know enough about Agave or not, lies on you. You are the person who says that the experts and I are wrong. You can find his works on the net using Google. I used (http://www.archive.org/details/introductionltu02candgoog) Personally I find it likely that someone with his background would know very well that Agave proliferates by underground runners since it is so obvious.
Göte
Thank you, Göte, for the reference to de Candolle. I was able to find only one reference in that text to monocarpic plants, on pages 436-437. In this passage, de Candolle does not define the concept monocarpic, but he does use agave as an example.
It is evident that the death of the plant is a core part of de Candolle’s concept of monocarpic. Indeed, the passage in question begins “La mort des plantes monocarpiennes…” and then goes on to describe how the strain of fruiting draws sap up into the stem, causes buds to wither and roots to perish. I don’t think the prospects for this doctor’s patient are very good; in fact, I believe he is describing a dying plant.
So let me put my point of view this way: Cardiocrinum does not die after setting seed, therefore it is not monocarpic in de Candolle’s sense of the word.
-
No Gerry,
I am not clever enough to understand your use of the word ‘form’. To me, (a b—dy foreigner) the form is what in computer language is called ‘frame’ or ‘protocol’. The form of a Sonnet is to me the rules that make it one; such as that there shall be fourteen lines, a specified number and kind of metrical feet and rules about rhymes.
Opposed to the form is the content – the meaning of the message, the data sent in the frame, the feeling conveyed to the reader of the sonnet.
To me it looks as you object to the content not the form – thus I do not understand.
I did not say that you claimed that that a “common genome necessarily makes several physically distinct entities into a single individual”. I merely tried to shape up the form of my previous reference to twins. Something I did because of your objection to the form.
I agree that the meaning of a word depends upon the context. Thus I did not say that “a reference to Siamese twins proves that the statement about Carlton is rubbish”. I used the word “Not necessarily” which is a much weaker statement and allows that sometimes perhaps the inference from the genome could be drawn.
Probably I made a mistake about the form I was using – believing it to be clearer – especially since I previously referenced to Bertrand Russel who made such skillful use of this type of sentence in the preface to his skeptical essays – no doubt influenced by mathematical logic reasoning where there is a big difference between say: AN upper limit and THE upper limit.
Göte
PS
Is this a gardening forum or a philosophy forum?
-
Yes Jim.
de Candolle speaks about death. So do I. Of the death of the main original plant. The point is that de Candolle most probably knew that a part of the Agave plant was likely to live somewhere else since Agave plants send out runners. Thus you have not proven your sub-thesis. (Which seems to be that one of the most important botanists of the time did not know what he was saying) To do that you must at least prove that de Candolle believed that any and all rooted offsets would die with the plant.
By the way, have you ever grown a Cardiocrinum to maturity??
Göte
-
Is this a gardening forum or a philosophy forum?
This is an interesting thread which I find is better read every few days as the posts mount up which then gives some continuity. It would be even better to have the protagonists on a stage opposite each other and to be able to listen to the arguments in the flesh.
-
Göte wrote....
PS
Is this a gardening forum or a philosophy forum?
Göte, I fervently hope this forum is all things to all men..... " the answer to life the universe and everything" as the late Douglas Adams wrote 8) (in "the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" )...... it is a rare treat to find a place of such diversity, is it not ? ::)
-
I am glad someone is interested Tony but it would not make sense on a stage. Not if we have to stop arguing in order to find and read french books from the first part of the 19th century.
Göte
-
Yes Jim.
de Candolle speaks about death. So do I. Of the death of the main original plant. The point is that de Candolle most probably knew that a part of the Agave plant was likely to live somewhere else since Agave plants send out runners. Thus you have not proven your sub-thesis. (Which seems to be that one of the most important botanists of the time did not know what he was saying) To do that you must at least prove that de Candolle believed that any and all rooted offsets would die with the plant.
By the way, have you ever grown a Cardiocrinum to maturity??
Göte
Dear Göte, let's take things one at a time. If I seem not to have proved my sub-thesis (as you phrase it), perhaps that is because I prefer to concentrate on the main thesis for now. This highly entertaining discourse has wandered in a multitude of directions; I'm surprised no one has asked us to provide a site map!
Let's agree that we don't know precisely what de Candolle did or did not know. I would say that on the basis of the one passage I read, he seems to have believed that the plant (the entire plant) died. But of course that is only one brief passage: as the rest of us do, de Candolle might have been shaping his meanings for that particular context. He was trying to make a point.
Yes, I have grown Cardiocrinum. I grow C. cordatum. From one original bulb I have seen this plant bloom three times in my garden (in the years 2000, 2004 and again this year).
It is not necessary to resolve your concerns about the meaning of the words individual or individuum in order to make my point because, as anyone who has grown these plants and followed their development will attest, what eventually become individual plants in your sense are in an earlier stage of development part of what is indisputably one plant.
In other words, if you were to watch the development of the plant without its covering of soil, you would see that as this year's plant is blooming, the buds which will become the plants of the future are already there, an indivisible part of the mass of the one plant.
Surely even you will concede that as long as these buds are firmly attached to the basal plate - the same basal plate to which the blooming stem is attached - then they and the blooming stem are part of ONE plant in any reasonable meaning of those words. That such buds might in the future become separated and grow independently is irrelevant at this stage of the process.
Göte, you used the expression "main, original plant". By "main" I suppose you mean the most vigorous, conspicuous part of the assemblage. But what do you mean by "original"? For instance, with my Cardiocrinum, there is obviously a "main" plant, but I know from years of experience that what I see as the main plant is in fact only the current manifestation of such. In my own garden there have been already three such main plants, one succeeding the other over the years. Furthermore, I have no idea how many such "main plants" might have existed before the plant arrived in my garden. My plant might be a few decades old, it might be centuries old: there is no way to know.
All that can be said with certainty is that at sometime in the past a single, individual seed germinated into a plant of Cardiocrinum cordatum. Everything I have, whether conted as one plant or multiple plants, derives from that one seed. To my way of thinking that makes them all one plant, even if I chop them up and spread them around. I can destroy the physical connection, but I cannot change the fact that they are all derived from one seed, that they are all pieces of one original plant.
In this discussion we have failed to maintain a rigorous distinction between sexual reproduction and vegetative reproduction. Sexual reproduction results in the production of new individuals, their newness expresses as a unique genome. Vegetative reproduction results in the dispersal of an existing genome into separate, independently living entities.
We have also failed to give due consideration to the difference between organisms such as plants made up primarily of totipotent cells (which in plants allows pieces of one individual to be broken into numerous self sufficient entities) and organisms such as humans whose mature cells are not totipotent (which circumstance causes pieces of such organisms to die when they are removed under most circumstances).
Let's also agree that this word individual is context sensitive and in some contexts its meaning is context specific. In discussions of human identity we use this word individual in sense very different to the sense I used in the paragraph above about sexual and vegetative reproduction. I think most people would agree that our individuality as humans, although no doubt influenced by our genome, is something greater than that. Monozygotic twins are known to have much in common, and that is what you would expect from their origin as one entity split into two. But the common term "identical twins" is a misnomer: they are not identical individuals. Wouldn't you agree that our individuality is the product not only of our genetic makeup but also of everything we have experienced in life?
If monocarpic is to mean that only the main sprout dies, why are tulips, fritillaries and lilies not considered monocarpic? The main sprout in these plants always dies after setting seed.
-
And here's something I should have included in the previous post: The word individual has been used in this thread in application to the pieces which result when one plant is divided. Perhaps that is not the proper word to use. The etymology of the word individual suggests that whatever it means in common speech now, it’s original meaning meant “indivisible”. Thus to my way of thinking, to the extent to which plants are freely divisible, the word individual is not properly applicable to them.
-
I agree that without further research, we cannot be absolutely certain what de Candolle knew or did not know. I repeat, however, that I find it extremely unlikely that he would not know that Agave proliferates by runners.
I also repeat that: If a group of people use a word in a special meaning, this is the meaning of the word within that group. This meaning cannot be falsified if the group is knowledgeable about the circumstances that word describes and I claim that botanists including de Candolle know that Agave sends out runners.
I agree that “identical twins” is a misnomer. The Swedish word is “one-egg-twins” but I assume that I have to stick to English here. I agree that they are not identical in the mathematical meaning of the word. Indeed I assumed this to be the accepted view and thus used them as an example on that homozygotism does not prevent individuality and thus the offsets can be considered separate entities. Are you not arguing against yourself?
In a bulb of a Lilium, the basal plate is intact and entire year after year. Even in the first stages of splitting the basal plate is entire.
As far as I understand. (Now is not a good time to dig up a Cardiocrinum in my climate) the basal plate of a Cardiocrinum disintegrates when the plant is past flowering.
The difference seems to be that the flowering stalks in truly perennial Liliaceae, (sensu lato) the flowering stem does not come from the apical bud. This can often be clearly observed, also without dissecting the bulb, if a lily bulb is lifted at the flowering stage. Thus the stem (basal plate) lives happily on, spending side buds on sexual reproduction. This is very obvious in say Trillium where the stem is not shortened to a basal plate.
You write that “The main sprout in these plants always dies” This is beside the (growing ;D ) point. The sprout in these plants is not the main stem which it is in an Agave or Cardiocrinum.
In those species that I call monocarp, the flowering stem comes from the apical bud which causes those parts of the stem, that are not already separated enough to become self sufficient entities, to die. The basal plate of the Cardiocrium or Notholirion is such a stem.
Some botanists consider Cardiocrinum to be more primitive than Lilium. The ability to flower from side buds rather than from the apical bud would fit into that idea since it improves the rate of survival.
This difference in flowering habit can also be seen in dicots. An Echeveria flowers from side buds and the main rosette grows on forever whereas a superficially similar Sempervivum flowers from the apical bud and the rosette dies.
By “original plant” I mean the plant I bought, was given or nursed from seed or or.... As opposed to those cuttings, runners or offsets that develop from it.
Göte
-
Göte, I think I detect a pattern in the way you are presenting some of your ideas. Let’s examine that pattern and discuss its effect on the conduct of this discussion.
I understand the basic argument you are making about the nature of definitions: yes, a definition cannot be falsified. I’m assuming that you mean that in the same way it is said that analytic a priori statements cannot be falsified. Definitions, in that sense, do not say anything about the real world. They do not assert the existence of anything; they simply spell out a relationship. They do not even assert the existence of the elements of the relationship they spell out. But it seems to me that there is an aspect of definitions which you are not taking into account. To be truly meaningful and useful, don’t they have to agree with what is happening in the real world? Such might not be definitions in the philosophical sense, but they are definitions in the everyday sense.
And then there is this: your definitions project a snap-shot, momentary view of the world. They overlook the fact that in the real world there will be underlying processes at work. However secure they are in their momentary certainty, these definitions overlook the overarching processes which can make the definitions irrelevant.
Let’s apply this to your example of the way words have meanings within subsets of the greater population. As long as the subsets in question pursue their activities separately, there is no cause for concern. But in the real world, as knowledge expands, bridges between formerly discrete disciplines develop. Territory formerly considered the preserve of one subset comes to be occupied by two. When this happens, something has to give. Both camps might quarrel indefinitely about who is right, or a consensus might emerge with a definition which is a hybrid of the former definitions, or some members of either subset might chose to ignore those who disagree with them and continue on in their own world.
Let me give you a real world example, one taking place right now. There is a word which has not appeared in this thread yet, a word whose meaning touches on much of what we have been discussing. That word is clone. Its appearance in English is generally attributed to Herbert J. Webber of the plant Breeding Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture (here in the US). Although I’ve known the citation to Webber for years, until a few hours ago I have never had his paper in my hands in order to subject it to autopsy. As it turns out, Webber himself is not the source of the term clone (or as it appears in his paper, clon). The word appeared first in a publication by Webber, but Webber himself points out that it was a coworker, a Mr. O.F. Cook, who called his attention to the suitability of the Greek word κλων.
Webber had earlier proposed the word strace (strain + race) for the same concept, and had submitted it to a review committee. But when he became aware of clon, he withdrew that proposal and went with Cook’s clon. In his paper, Webber reminds readers that clon is pronounced with a long o; later the spelling was revised to the form we now use, clone, to make that reminder unnecessary.
Webber’s definition of clon, the holotype so-to-speak for the word clone, is worth reading: I’ve attached it as an image below. This appears in Science II 18 501-503 from 1903. One reason I was slow in responding this time is that it took time to get a copy of this paper today. Thanks to the cooperation of a local librarian and the librarians at the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Maryland, three hours after making a request I had the papers in my hand. This cooperation saved me several hours of driving.
Take a considered look at Weber's definition. It’s notable for at least one thing is says and equally notable for something it does not say. The thing said and the thing left unsaid are both at variance with the contemporary meaning of clone as used by the majority of users.
The thing said which is remarkable is the phrase “Clons, which are groups of plants…”(bold and italics mine). This is in contrast to the usual contemporary usage where clone is used to refer to the elements which make up a clone in Webber’s sense.
The thing left unsaid which is remarkable is this: later re-workings of the clone concept shifted the emphasis in meaning from the nature of the origin of the elements which make up a clone (i.e. vegetative propagation from what Webber calls “the same individual seedling”) to the supposed fact that such elements are identical. Nowhere does Webber allude to this supposed property of being identical.
Perhaps the reason he did not mention this is because his experience told him what observant gardeners had known for centuries: the elements which make up a clone are, contrary to that early and still persistent assumption, not necessarily identical. As an example, at the time Webber was writing, most of the early double tulips were said (or rather would come to be said as the concepts developed – at that time they were called “sports” in the English-speaking world) to be somatic mutations of one variety, ‘Murillo’. They all originated from one individual seedling and in Webber’s sense formed a clone.
Webber’s concept and the contemporary concept of clone are in some ways potentially mutually contradictory. The tulips of the ‘Murillo’ group do not fit the modern definition because they are not all alike: in fact, their commercial success derives from the fact that the various named varieties all have different colors.
The incidence of these somatic mutations seems to be proportional to the number of replications in question.
The modern concept of clone is a metonym of the original concept. Webber defined it as the group which resulted from the vegetative propagation of one seedling. In modern parlance it refers to the individual which is identical to something else. A clone in Webber’s sense is said, in modern parlance, to be made up of clones. In contemporary street-English it refers to someone who is so lacking in imagination that they copy the dress, speech or other characteristics of another person. In my opinion, the majority of persons who now use the word are clones (in the modern street sense) because rather than trying to understand Webber’s definition, they follow the definition of the crowd!
Göte, what side shall we take in this dilemma? I told this long story because to me it is a good example of what happens in the real world. There are those of us who still cling to Webber’s concept, but we are evidently the minority. For the idea conveyed by the modern concept of clone (i.e. something identical to the thing it is derived from) I use the term tautad (from the Greek combining form taut- , same, and the suffix –ad indicating a group).
Those of us who cling to Webber’s original concept are now in competition with those who use the metonym. I have no illusions about the way this is going: this horse has been out of the barn so long that we’ll never get it back in.
This unfortunate turn of events happened because “Authorities” in horticulture, who originated the word, were not in sufficiently close contact with “Authorities” in other fields. For nearly a full century there seems to have been little cross-communication, perhaps because the eventual usurpers of the world, vertebrate zoologists, had little interest in clones until very recently. Dolly changed that, didn’t she! There is every reason to believe that cloning of humans has been happening throughout our evolutionary history: but that is the natural cloning which results in monozygotic twins. The cloning of vertebrates outside the maternal womb is now a hot research area and will no doubt ensure the employment of many medical ethicists. Is it time to retire the original concept of clone for good?
If I persist in using Webber’s concept (and as a gardener it fits my needs very well – and furthermore, why should I change for the Johnny-come-lately sorts), am I guilty of using the snap-shot, momentary sort of definition I alluded to at the beginning of this long piece?
I’m not done here. This piece is already much too long. But there is a lot more to be said – tomorrow maybe.
-
Dear Jim,
You have brought in a number of topics like the variability of Murillo Tulips, the etymology of the word ‘individual’ and the cellular specialisation of mammals, You have even introduced Greek letters which after passing through the net come out unreadable on my screen.
However interesting these topics may be, they have little relevance for the question in hand and only serve to confuse the issues. If I do not make a serious attempt to stick to the subject I might soon be debating the colour of the pope’s beard and the song the sirens sang.
The original disagreement was that I used the word monocarp for Notholirion.
You claimed that this be wrong since offsets with the same genome may come up next year.
It is clear from my original post that I do not believe that the genome in Notholirion necessarily dies after flowering.
The word monocarp to me means that the main manifestation of the genome in he shape of a stem, rhizome or basal plate dies after flowering because the flowers develop from the apical bud of this manifestation of the genome. In the case of annuals, there are no secondary surviving manifestations of the genome. Thus the genome dies with the manifestation. In Notholirion, there are sometimes secondary manifestations arising from lateral buds and thus the genome can survive. The same is even more true for Cardiocrinum and Agave.
In everyday talk, People – including myself – do not say “Primary-manifestation-of-the-genome-in-the-shape-of-a-stem-rhizome-or-basal-plate.” We do not even say PMOGITSOASROBP That would be pompous – using your vocabulary. We say ‘Plant’. Most of us live happily with the ambiguity of this word (which even can mean a manufacturing facillity) and that is the word used in dictionaries trying to define the M-word. Thus ’plant’ is the word I will use hereunder. Likewise I will not say Secondary-manifestations-of the-genome-arising-from-lateral-buds-on-the-primary-manifestation-which-are-able-to-live-separated. I will say offsets.
The genome of the aggregate of plant and offsets I will call the genome.
You are using a different definition of the M-word. You say that the particle ‘mono’ refers to the genome, not to the plant. I think that you have not given sufficient justification for that opinion. I think that the M-word reasonably well describes what happens. The main manifestation indeed only flowers once.
You have suggested that my definition turns Lilium into monocarps. I have explained to you that the difference seems to lie in that the inflorescence comes from a lateral bud in Lilium and from the apical bud in Cardiocrinum. Thus the basal plate of a Lilium is not damaged by the flowering. (It is also very obvious to the casual observer that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Lilium flowers every year whereas Cardiocrinum flowers every 3rd to 7th year.) I think that you should consider and comment upon that difference rather than dragging in the reasons for variability within the murillos.
Passim I note that the offsets never seem to come before the apical bud turns into an inflorescence. I should believe that there is a suppression mechanism of lateral buds that is similar to the one in Trillium.
De Candolle did probably not know Notholirion or Cardiocrinum. Nor is he likely to have used the word genome. Agave americana was, however, a well known ornamental so by including Agave among the monocarps, he showed that his definition was in fact, even if not in words, similar to mine. You have tried to avoid this argument by casting doubts on de Candolle’s knowledge in his own field of expertise.
I have claimed that the consensus among the experts seems to be to use the word the way de Candolle and I do. Your answer to that has not been to show that the consensus supports your opinion. Instead you have also here claimed that the experts are wrong in their own field.
Agave americana was mentioned by Charles de L'Ecluse in 1576 who sent offsets to his friend Coudebeq, an apothecary in Antwerp. L'Ecluse = Clusius was appointed as the first director of the Leiden Botanical Gardens in Holland in 1590. You will have a hard time proving ignorance among botanists.
In my opinion there is no inherent logic in the word ‘mono’ that makes it refer to a genome rather than to a plant. Common usage of the word ‘monocarp’ indicates that in that word, the particle ‘mono’ refers to the plant not to the genome. In annuals your definition of the M-word is identical with mine but we rarely call annuals monocarps and that is a further support for my view.
If you are interested in inherent logic in words, let me point out that the manufacturers of Volvo were deliberately using a Latin word they knew well. Fortunately only the wheels roll; not the entire car. Should we tell Ford that they bought a car manufacturer under a mistaken brand name?
Should we strictly forbid any “float” in the meaning of original words when we make new by combination, then the M-word could only apply to plants within the monogynia in the Linnean sense of the word.
I wish you a merry Christmas and happy New Year. May your Monocarps flower repeatedly!
All the best
Göte
-
This (reply #54) gets my vote for Post of the Year, and the thread isn't bad either!
Christmas Greetings to all, and special thanks to you Göte and Jim.
-
Ashley,
I am sure your Seasonal Greetings are appreciated by all.
I will now bring this thread to a close......
[attachimg=1]