"I call myself a quasi-taxonomist and would like to share with you my experiences in the taxonomic world for the past 10 years. After dipping my toe into these waters just once I consider my role now is to try to understand what others do and ask questions. This is another reason why I now stay away from the published word preferring the freedom of the Internet. Perhaps in the future, the electronic media will play a more important role. This is why the FCBS Species Database will never be printed and will not be a threat to the Binomial listings. It will, however, be updated as information comes in making it a more dynamic source of information.
Previously, you have only been told half the story with lists. Because I retain knowledge better when I know what is happening I assume others do too and this database should appeal to the most inquisitive.
Herbarium specimens
Each new species must have an herbarium specimen TYPE. These are housed throughout the world mainly in institutions but sometimes privately. It is best that at least one specimen should be preserved in the country of origin. Many of these specimens are now being copied digitally so that reference can be made without damaging the fragile material This is a vast improvement on the grey photographs used in the past and means that the likes of myself in Australia can at least look at them and make logical comment!
Protologues
These are the original descriptions that are shown as the first entry under reference and if you want to find out more it will mean a bit more searching in botanical libraries. If there is a name in brackets in the 'Named by' section then further referral would be necessary to find the actual protologue! These descriptions link to the herbarium specimens. All or part must be in Latin. This means that most of the description is in the language that the writer is most comfortable with. Regrettably there is no minimum detail requirement and some should take their lead from those written by Elton Leme or Renate Ehlers for example. One recent description in the J. Brom. Soc for a Guzmania had very little floral detail and the only way you could tell it was a Guzmania was in the title!
Dissertations
These are papers submitted to receive doctorates and are the result of much research and effort. In some faculties these are considered valid publications and in botany some consider them valid when produced in Australia. However, in the USA they are not considered a valid publication but a manuscript. They are much more accessible than many of the so called valid publications produced in the most obscure places. Examples of these are
- Sue Gardner's 1982 Systematic Study of Tillandsia subgenus Tillandsia
- Carlos Palaci's 1997 Paper on Catopsis where only part was published some 6 years later.
Dissertations are referred to in the database. The problem here, is that new species names or new names for old species given to satisfy nomenclatural problems are not accepted but synonyms are. Dissertations are good in this regard because, generally speaking, reasons for synonymy are given. Care should be taken in quoting from parts because they can be out of context and misleading.
Synonyms
Walter Till tells me that " Synonymising is not a true matter of nomenclature but a taxonomic judgement." This means that I, as a quasi-taxonomist, can do this too, but when I do , I try to give reasons why I follow someone else's reasoning. It is 'valid' to place a taxon under synonymy without giving reason as long as it is in a valid publication. It is also 'valid' to ignore synonymy without giving reason. BUT I like reasons because they help in understanding what is happening. Take just one example where I took 7 pages in J. Brom. Soc 52: 172-8. 2002 and years of research to propose that Billbergia pyramidalis var. concolor did not exist for it to be ignored in the Binomial listing #9 2004 without comment.
In addition, one would assume that when species B is made a synonym of species A that the descriptions of A& B would be merged to give a new description for the new broader concept for species A. This rarely happens!!! Just one example. Billbergia decipiens was described by Pereira & Reitz in 1975 but was placed by Smith in Flora Neotropica 1979 as a synonym of Billbergia tweediana var. latisepala without comment. If he had merged the descriptions he would have noted a different petal colour and the fact that the sepals are 3 times as long as wide not twice which gave it its name of wide sepals! In DeRebus I, 1994 p76 we saw Billbergia decipiens become a species without comment only for it to disappear 10 years later in Binomial listing 2004, again without comment.
Conclusion
Clearly we need a reference for Bromeliaceae that reflects the movement AND the reasons if we are the questioning type. Dare I say we are very lucky in the Bromeliaceae which can be compared with the Cactaceae because of its age and number of species. There the comparison ends because in Cactaceae changes of name at both species and generic level are colossal!"
|