I've been a birder since my teens, and I've studied botany for about
30 years, most as a specialist on the genus Castilleja. I have a few
comments to make about the state of naming in both plants and birds.
First, at least in North America, common names are standardized by the
ABA, and most folks use these names (which I favor capitalizing).
However, no such standardization has been achieved in botany, with
many species having no common name at all and others with a wide range
of regional names, some of which are very misleading. In botany, I
urge folks to learn the scientific binomial names, as there is no
confusion in these, with one major exception. As Michael notes, the
taxonomy of plants has undergone a major revolution with the advent of
rapid DNA sequencing and genome analysis, and many groups have changed
families, genera, and species names. However, things are beginning to
stabilize, and within a few years, most of the major reorganization
will be achieved. In any case, the use of scientific names for plants
is FAR more consistent and meaningful that are the common names. Also,
many plant families and genera havde undergone little or no change in
recent years, and I think Michael's statement that "most Washington
plants have a current scientific name, which is different from the one
they had 5-10 years ago, which is different from the one in the
Washington botanist?s bible, commonly known as ?Hitchcock? is a
significant overstatement. In fact, I'd say just the opposite -- most
of the plant names in Hitchcock are still valid and in use. In
Castilleja, for instance, only a handful have changed, though a
portion of the species formerly placed in Orthocarpus have been moved
into Castilleja. So, some changes for sure as our knowledge of
evolutionary phylogenetics expands, but a lot of stability as well. In
any case, for those interested in botany, learning the scientific
names is definitely recommended, unless your interest does not extend
beyond flower gardening...

Mark




>
> From: "Michael Hobbs" <BirdMarymoor at frontier.com>
> Date: March 18, 2011 7:20:27 PM PDT
> To: "Dennis Paulson" <dennispaulson at comcast.net>, "McComb Gardens" <jane at mccombgardens.com
> >
> Cc: TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Re: Common names for plants
>
>
> My wife is a volunteer with the Washington Native Plant Society.
> Plants right now are going through a massive and wide-ranging
> reorganization, as DNA testing is demonstrating that previous
> understanding of plant taxonomy was rather, um, faulty. Plants are
> being moved from family to family, and families are being split.
> Things are no better at the genus level. The result is that, it
> seems to me, most Washington plants have a current scientific name,
> which is different from the one they had 5-10 years ago, which is
> different from the one in the Washington botanist?s bible, commonly
> known as ?Hitchcock? (the author?s name). Now days, it seems the
> constant is the common name in botany, even though the names are
> regional and inconsistent.
>
> Unfortunately, things like the North American asters (part of the
> common name of many plants of the family Asteraceae) are no longer
> in the genus Aster, and are now divided amongst at least 10 new
> genera.
>
> The confusion is almost humorous to watch; when I first started
> birding 20+ years ago (around the time that towhees and orioles were
> being renamed), the botanists were chiding birders for using common
> names, instead of the ?immutable? Linnaean binomials. :)
>
> == Michael Hobbs
> == Kirkland, WA
> == http://www.marymoor.org/birding.htm
> == http://www.marymoor.org/BirdBlog.htm
> == birdmarymoor at frontier.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20110319/f08ef872/attachment.htm