[Taxacom] monoecious/dioecious in plant descriptions

Mary Barkworth Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu
Mon Dec 5 05:38:07 CST 2011


Part of my rationale was that I was thinking of multiple descriptions as in a flora and trying to find an appropriate place that could be used in each description, whether the taxon was monecious, dioecious, or synoecious. Personally, I prefer using unisexual and bisexual at the appropriate level. Basically, though, I agree with Jim that it is the flow that matters. Humans read differently from computers. We should not disadvantage humans in our desire to cater to computers even if what is being written is (or should be) data dense.

Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stevens [mailto:peter.stevens at mobot.org] 
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 6:11 PM
To: Mary Barkworth
Cc: Sosef, Marc; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monoecious/dioecious in plant descriptions

Well, so long as you talk about monoecy plain and simple, then I think you can put that immediately before inflorescence, where it makes more sense, I think. But chacun a son gout ( as they might say if I had put in accents). Consistency!

P.
On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Mary Barkworth wrote:

> The first format is best because an individual plant cannot be 
> dioecious. Plants can be unisexual. If a plant is unisexual, so are 
> its inflorescences and flowers but if a taxon is monoecious, its 
> plants are bisexual and its inflorescences could be either unisexual 
> or bisexual but its flowers would be unisexual.
>
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom- 
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Sosef, Marc
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 11:58 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] monoecious/dioecious in plant descriptions
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I stumbled upon the question what the right/correct position is of the 
> words monoecious, dioecious, androdioecious, etc. in a plant 
> description. When browsing through quit some species descriptions, in 
> Floras as well as revisions, it seems there is no consensus at all 
> amongst plant taxonomists. The indication may appear roughly in the 
> following places:
>
> Monoecious. Plants up to 1 m high, ....
>
> Plants monoecious, up to 1 m high, .....
>
> ..... Inflorescence monoecious, axillary, ......
>
> ..... Flowers monoecious, on short pedicels, ......
>
> To me personally, the first, or maybe second option is most appealing, 
> but I am open for any well-defended other opinion. The question is of 
> course, are these terms an adjective, and if so to the species, the 
> plant(s), the inflorescence, the flowers, or what?
>
> best regards,
> Marc Sosef
>
> Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis (section NHN), 
> Biosystematics group, Wageningen University Gen. Foulkesweg 37,
> 6703 BL Wageningen, The Netherlands
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/ 
> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/ 
> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here





More information about the Taxacom mailing list