[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


>>>Neil beat me to the punch on this one, so it may sound like "me too!", but
on this issue I have _definite_ objections.<<<

>>>Dwight, I really fail to see how your approach will do anything to
confusion over the plants in question. You may as well take the "lumping"
tack to taxonomy to its extreme by eliminating species altogether, as that
seems to be where most of the "confusion" lies in these sorts of questions.<<<

>>>Rather than try to explain all of the reasons it _wouldn't_ be such a good
idea, I'll wait until I hear from you on why you think it _would_, though.
Rebuttal is much more productive than idle rambling.<<<

What I object to is the accusatory tone of Frank's comments.  I don't
"arbitrarily" name a plant at all.  I find his accusation is first, untrue
and last, offensive!  If I can't get an ID from fellow aquarists or even
from published books (this has happened just once or twice) I will clearly
state I don't know its ID or use an acceptable common name.  

I will readily admit if I have made an error in an ID.  This happens when
you buy a new plant with which you are unfamiliar and you use what the
supplier claims is its scientfic name.  I have yet to be convinced that
that is the case here.  But I will not be dictated to by a
not-so-disinterested party as is Neil Frank.   

As someone just told me, [paraphrase]  "A rose by any other name would
smell just as sweet and the pearlgrass will look just as beautiful no
matter its name."  My feeling is let's find a way to agree on what we are
talking about.  Let's cite recognized scientific publications whenever
scientific nomenclature is at issue. Let's not argue on who should get the
privilage of naming this - or - that or publicly ACCUSE fellow aquarists.
That's unproductive.   

TMG users? Don't forget Potassium: