[pbs] Plant guidebooks and taxonomy
Jane McGary
janemcgary at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 3 14:17:24 EDT 2003
In a recent posting on "Taxonomic changes," Mary Sue Ittner wrote:
"...a friend who is rewriting a book identifying local flora ... has always
divided the book by families and was distressed about all the changes she'd
have to make in the revision and was also wondering what the common names
were for the new families since she had labeled the family names by their
common names, not their scientific names, just as she describes the plants
by their common names although in this case she adds the scientific name in
small type below. I told her the public who uses her book looks at her
drawings and pays little attention to the families and appreciates that she
has divided it by color of the flowers. ... But she still wants to arrange
it in "the correct way." In the front of her book she has a key to the
families and if she continues it in the revision I can see how she might
struggle a bit to make everything fit."
As an editor of reference books, I think about these matters a lot as I use
plant manuals. Some thoughts:
1. I can't stand plant books arranged by flower color. First, the flowers
may not be present when you're looking at the plant, though you might be
able to identify it by the capsules or some other trait. Second, some
species have flowers of various colors, so where do you look for them?
Third, this results in genera being split up in various parts of the book,
which is utterly maddening. If you want to cater to readers so naive they
can't guess at a genus or even family, put in an appendix on flower color.
2. For the time being, I think it's best to present families as they
existed when many likely users of a given book learned or relearned them
(perhaps about 1990 is a good marker), but ALSO to mention recent proposed
revisions in a note to the key to families. I've learned the hard way not
to try to adapt to every taxonomic revision that appears, because sometimes
the botanist proposing one has second thoughts later and withdraws or
changes his proposal (e.g., Hershkovits's maneuvers around what most of us
know as Lewisia tweedyi).
3. I don't think the "common" family names (e.g., lily family, buttercup
family for Ranunculaceae) are systematized. For example, what used to be
called the Umbelliferae and is now the Apiaceae gets called both the
"carrot" and "parsley" family in English. When huge families are broken up
(e.g., the former Liliaceae), the spin-off families rarely have handy
"common" names anyway. Here I apply my bad-tempered motto: "If you can
learn to say 'carburetor', you can learn to say 'Zauschneria'." A word is
just a word, no matter how long it is.
4. It's true that it's hard to sell "wildflower" books without putting in
"common" names, but the introduction to the book should make it clear that
many of these common names have never actually been used in the vernacular
language and are, instead, made up by the writers of wildflower books.
Nobody else ever called a plant "Howelll's mariposa" or "Five-stamened
Mitrewort." People in Native Plant Societies often use these artificial
terms, but if you're from another area or not used to this practice, you
end up tearing your hair out trying to remember what a "mitrewort" is
(Mitella, which is EASIER to say and spell). I will be tearing my hair out
next week, no doubt, at the NARGS annual meeting, where the guides will
probably trot out these "easy" names.
In addition to being a part of the natural sciences, taxonomy is a part of
anthropology and linguistics, and also of philosophy. Because most of us
(the ones without pocket DNA sequencers) approach it from a macro and
linguistic standpoint, we inevitably encounter confusing areas and
sometimes feel that we are being carried along helplessly on a flood of
ever-changing information. The only response for the non-botanists among
us, I think, is to make it clear what framework we are using in what we
write, acknowledge alternatives of which we may be aware, and try not to be
too anxious.
Jane McGary
Northwestern Oregon
More information about the pbs
mailing list