What The...?

[Herts Mike]

Yesterday I was checking out Huernia zebrina and came across the National Gardening Association (American) site which has an excellent database of plants and pictures.

But.. The Huernias and all other Stapeliads i.e. Hoodias, Stapelias, Pseudolithos etc. had all been reduced to synonymy with Ceropegia!

I contacted John Pilbeam yesterday evening and it seem Peter Bruyns THE Stapeliad expert has decided that the rule of prior description should apply and has gone back to Linnaeus in 1753 who first described them all as Ceropegia.

Nobody is going to accept that. You might as well have all cacti in the genus Cactus or all trees in a genus Tree!

[juster]

I quite agree Mike, an extraordinary decision and one that doesn't make any sense.

[Aiko]

You don't have to follow every guideline (I see it as that). I just keep calling Homalocephala texensis that way. I like the name, learned the plant under that name and we all know which individual plant it is so there will be (or should be) no confusion on genus level about whatever synonym used.

Regarding asclepiads, I just keep on using the names Pseudolithos and such. Wonder if species name will conflict. Renaming species is not something I would encourage, as to avoid confusion on species level.

[rodsmith]

To misquote Shakespeare: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

[ralphrmartin]

Now, when will someone do the opposite, and split Euphorbia up?

[ChrisR]

......it seem Peter Bruyns THE Stapeliad expert has decided that the rule of prior description should apply and has gone back to Linnaeus in 1753 who first described them all as Ceropegia.

But surely that would only apply to those species described as Ceropegia by Linnaeus, not those discovered and described since?

Typical adademic taxonomy taken to it's extreme anyway!

[Phil_SK]

Yes, he hasn't decided the rule of priority should apply: it applies. It's more that, having decided to combine several genera, his choice of Ceropegia for the genus into which he transfers the others is based on priority - it will be the oldest of the genera he has combined.
I can't access the article but there's a hint of his reasoning in the abstract at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9916339242

[Terry S.]

Looking at the abstract provided by Phil, it looks as though we have a similar situation to that which arose from the DNA systematics work on Aloe/Haworthia. The choice there was either to have a mega-genus Aloe, or to set up various segregate genera; the latter having won out. Hardly anyone is going to accept a mega-genus Ceropegia, so it looks as though there is a great opportunity here again for someone to create new segregate genera from Ceropegia. Any volunteers?

[Herts Mike]

I shan't be changing my labels just yet...

[RICHAUD]

Whenever there are scientists who take such radical positions, I think it's a point of view and it's to us to decide to apply this new classification or not.
There I do not adhere
Prior description has limits