Define a specie.

[kadakuda]

i come from more of an animal education (herpetology) but it seems that plant taxonomy is a WAY bigger mess than much of animal classification.

i know what officially defines species, sort of (lol), but what should actually declare separations and clumping?

seems to me with all the rules set out to define a specie is so commonly broken so many times. so. ya, is it even possible to use the current system for classifying, at least plants, species?

the binomial system is cool and rather useful in many ways, but it seems rather inadequate in so many other ways. for a very obvious single point: hybrids and reproduction.

is it even possible to, probably cant ever use this work in a realistic context here, *properly* distinguish different plants from each other in a ___________ system?

some use morphology, others reproduction, others chemistry, others the effects they have when taken (medicines and poisons), or perhaps all or a couple together.

seems some groups, Echinopsis, prove much of the "rules" for distinction wrong or invalid.....OR..... the current classification is wrong and perhaps things like astrophytum and lophophora are the same specie cause they have been hybridized, for example. or maybe this whole binomial system is flawed from the get go?

anyway, just curious. maybe they're dumb q's, i think stupid random things when i drink sometimes

[trucha]

Actually, its simple.

Its just not something real unless you can explain where the data is going to come from for the literally thousands of sorts of cacti and the host of populations within most of them.

Its almost funny that the very things you reject elsewhere as not meaningful are now the same things which you say are recorded or of value.

You again try to make me out to say things that I do not say but if one reads back through the threads those same things have in fact been said by you.

Such sophistry is a waste of time to even respond to.

I like you but its really a waste of time to discuss something lacking feasibility. The technology certainly exists but, honestly, does the potential for this data ever being in hand? Is there really adequate academic or commercial interest?

Now what we need is computers to do their own field work, analysis, data entry and programming.

Lacking the data that system cannot exist. Lacking motivation and funding and opportunity and a lot of tireless workers that data cannot be obtained.

Computers are only as objective as what they get fed. GIGO.

Edited March 14, 2009 by trucha

[Gunter]

I agree at this point there isn't enough to the topic to warrant involved effort.

I still believe that the data which is worthless for some causes, like floral data for cultivated plants is still statistically significant when examined by data comparison programs like those used to work with nucleotides.

Old type specimens and their data likewise are relevant.

I won't be formulating or outlining an approach to revising taxonomy anytime soon, but i still have faith in the idea.