9
Sego Lily March 2013 36 (2)
Indeed, hybrids between meadow
fescue and other ryegrasses are of-
ten used in lawn seed mixes. So
these former fescue grasses have
been transferred to Lolium.* There
is good evidence that some mem-
bers of the goldenweed genus
(Haplopappus) are more closely
related to goldenrods (Solidago),
while others are closer to rabbit-
brush (Chrysothamnus).
Some of these insights come from
new analytical methods made possi-
ble by computers. Others can be
traced to recent advances in mo-
lecular biology. Up until 50 years
ago, plant taxonomy relied entirely
on morphological characters such
as fruit shape, number of stamens,
type of hairs, etc. Shared traits can
be an unreliable indication of close
relationship because they can also
evolve in unrelated groups as a re-
sult of convergent natural selection.
For example, many species of cush-
ion plants occur on windswept al-
pine ridges. They superficially re-
semble each other because they
suffer the same harsh conditions,
but they come from many different
and unrelated plant families. Mod-
ern plant systematists are using
portions of DNA and computers that
can analyze lots of data to uncover
past misunderstandings in evolu-
tionary relationships made using
earlier morphological methods.
Although molecular characters and
analytical methods have advanced
the field of biological taxonomy,
these approaches may not always
yield a definitive answer. Analyzing
two different regions of DNA some-
times fails to give congruent classifi-
cations, and phylogenetic analysis
yields only the most likely classifi-
cation. Nonetheless, plant systema-
tists are constructing classifications
that better reflect the course of past
evolution, and they are changing the
nomenclature to reflect their new
understanding.
Unfortunately for users of scien-
tific names, many recently proposed
name changes are based more on
* But since transferred to their own
genus, Schedonorus, in Volume 24 of
Flora of North America (2007)
of similar-appearing sedges. Then
Arthur Cronquist, who authored flo-
ras for much of North America in the
latter part of the century, lumped
many of these sedge species together.
Now sedge experts are more inclined
to be splitters, and many of the spe-
cies recognized during Mackenzie’s
time have been resurrected in the
Flora of North America treatment.
What’s old is new again, and those of
us who cut our teeth on Cronquist’s
treatments will be learning a lot of
new old names. This seems like the
most arbitrary reason for nomencla-
tural instability, but it will probably
continue as long as taxonomists re-
main human.
The most understandable reason
for nomenclatural revisions has to do
with standardization. A great many
botanical names were generated dur-
ing the latter part of the 19th and
early part of the 20th centuries.
These names were published in jour-
nals and books that had limited geo-
graphic distribution at the time. Presl
described Poa secunda as new to sci-
ence in an obscure European publica-
tion in 1830 based on a collection
from Chile. More than 60 years later
Vasey described the same species as
Poa sandbergii in the Contributions
from the U.S. National Herbarium, ap-
parently unaware of Presl’s descrip-
tion. All this began to change when
communication and travel increased
dramatically following World War II.
Museum specimens and literature
were exchanged freely, and Elizabeth
Kellogg, working at Harvard, realized
that these two bluegrass species were
the same. International rules of nom-
enclature specify that the earliest
published name takes precedence, so
the correct scientific name for
Sandberg bluegrass became Poa
secunda, both in South America and
here. It’s the globalization of botany.
Many recent name changes at the
level of genus and family are due to
new insights on evolutionary rela-
tionships, For example, there is now
unequivocal evidence that tall fescue
(Festuca arundinacea) and meadow
fescue (F. pratensis), two tame hay
meadow grasses, are more closely
related to species of ryegrass (Lolium
spp.) than they are to other fescues.
opinion than sound scientific evi-
dence. There may be preliminary
evidence suggesting that the tradi-
tional scientific names don’t accu-
rately reflect evolutionary relation-
ships. However, there is often not
enough genetic or morphological evi-
dence yet available to determine how
the names should be changed to rem-
edy the problem. New Linnaean bi-
nomials derived from inadequate,
preliminary evidence will often prove
no better than the names in current
use. In many cases it would be a good
idea to continue using traditional
names until enough solid evidence
compels us to change.
There are often several synonyms
for a particular species, but few of us
have the time or skill to evaluate all
the evidence buried in the scientific
literature. How should we choose the
name to use? There are several good
websites that provide synonyms for
scientific names. These include
Tropicos at the Missouri Botanical
Garden website (http://mobot.org/
W3T/Search/vast.html) and the In-
ternational Plant Names Index
(www.ipni.org/index.html). The US
Department of Agriculture PLANTS
website (http://plants.usda.gov/
index.html) even suggests which
names to accept. However, there is
no such thing as a botanical nomen-
clature arbitration committee to de-
cide which name should be in use.
We agree with Wayne Ferren and
Robert Haller, former editors for the
California Botanical Society. Confu-
sion can be minimized by adopting
the nomenclature presented on a
credible regional or local flora and
reporting that source when you use
scientific names.
Most plant systematists are stu-
dents of evolution, and having classi-
fications that reflect evolutionary
processes is, in the long run, a valu-
able goal. Unfortunately, in the short
term this goal is at odds with the
other function of taxonomic nomen-
clature—stability and standardiza-
tion. Like it or not, we’re in for a pe-
riod of nomenclatural revolution, but
we hope to know more about the
workings of nature in the process.
We just wish our memories were as
good as when we were twenty.