[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BEN # 191
BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X
BB B EE NNN N
BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL
BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC
BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS
No. 190 May 2, 1998
aceska@victoria.tc.ca Victoria, B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2
-----------------------------------------------------------
WORKSHOP ON BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF COMMON TANSY
From: Alec McClay <alec@aec.arc.ab.ca>
First Announcement
August 13-14, 1998 - Edmonton, Alberta
Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), is an increasingly abundant
weed in pastures, roadsides, and riparian areas in Alberta. The
Alberta Research Council and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development will be holding a workshop to review the available
information on tansy, including the results of recent studies in
Alberta, and to develop plans for its management. The pos-
sibility of starting a biological control program against tansy
will be an option to be discussed. The program will include a
field tour to view tansy-infested areas. This workshop will be
open to anyone interested in this weed, including researchers,
land managers, and weed control specialists from the public and
private sectors. We would also be interested to know if anyone
has information on possible economic uses of tansy (herbal,
medicinal, etc.) that could be presented at the workshop. For
further information, or if you would like to make a presentation
at the workshop, please contact me by May 29, 1998:
Alec McClay
Crop & Plant Management Unit, Alberta Research Council
P.O. Bag 4000, Vegreville, Alberta
Canada T9C 1T4
Tel. (403) 632-8207
Fax. (403) 632-8612
e-mail: alec@aec.arc.ab.ca
COMMENTS ON QIAN AND KLINKA'S PLANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,
WITH REFERENCE TO ADOLF CESKA'S COMMENTS IN BEN 187
From: Cris Guppy <cguppy@quesnelbc.com>
I have long needed a single compiled list of plant synonymies
and common names for British Columbia. I am mostly interested in
plants as butterfly or moth larval food plants and adult nectar
sources. Literature records of larval food plants may be a
century or more old, and hence synonymies are essential. Unlike
Adolf, I thank Qian and Klinka for their checklist. Checklist
authors are to be praised, I cannot think of anything more
boring to compile.
Hard copies of checklists ARE useful, in addition to digital
checklists. Not everyone has a decent computer to access a
digital checklist, and not everyone who wants to use a checklist
wants or needs a modern computer. As for Internet lists, I
generally work mostly in the evenings. At that time my Internet
access is severely limited due to all lines being in use. Having
a hard copy checklist beside my desk avoids my needing to wait
until after 11:00 PM to find out one synonymy or common name. Of
course the price of this checklist is incredibly high, which
presumably is the result of a limited press run based on a
prediction of limited sales (guaranteed by the price).
As for hard copies rapidly becoming out of date _ of course they
will, and so will digital files unless someone is constantly
updating them. That may or may not be possible for any par-
ticular list, depending on funding, retirements and deaths. And
who is going to pay for the production and distribution of
digital checklists? A hard copy book can pay for itself through
sales, while a digital file immediately gets pirated. I might
add that I would love to have a digital checklist in addition to
the hard copy, both have their uses. An important function of a
hard copy checklist is that it is unchanging (exactly what Adolf
objects to), and hence reports or publications can reference it
as the source of their common and scientific names (specifying
changes as needed). Even when errors are present or changes
occur, use of the checklist as the source of names provides a
solid base against which future work can be compared.
It is unfortunate that there are errors in Qian and Klinka's
checklist, and that some have been repeated from a previous
checklist, but the only way to correct errors is to systemati-
cally document and publish them so that future checklists can
include the corrections. BEN would be an appropriate place to
document minor errors of spelling and gender. Similarly if
taxonomic conclusions are in error, DOCUMENT and PUBLISH alter-
native opinions instead of just complaining about them.
I pleased that Qian and Klinka have included non-BC synonymies
in their checklist. It would be nice to have included non-North
American synonymies as well, but there are limits to what any
publication can address. BC covers such a limited geographic
area that there would be no purpose in including any synonymies
if those from outside BC are excluded. Omitting non-BC
synonymies would have been omitting the world context within
which BC exists.
The "duplication" of names through the use of three separate
checklist is only partly unnecessary. A better format would have
been to have the main checklist followed by an alphabetical
index of all names, allowing rapid location of the current
placement of any name (a numeric taxon code, described below,
would assist in this).
I agree with Adolf that a list of ALL references consulted would
have been useful, so that omissions could be noted. Explanations
of taxonomic decisions would also be useful. One strategy in a
checklist is to insert "note numbers" which lead to an appendix
of taxonomic references and explanations. This allows checklist
authors to explain and document their decisions, and acknowledge
controversial issues, while maintaining the usefulness of the
list itself.
Adolf is correct that the list of "excluded species" is a sig-
nificant problem in the checklist, although the reason is not
the errors he notes. The lack of explanations for WHY the
species are excluded, and why they were originally considered
for inclusion, is the major problem. The excluded species should
have included in the main checklist, with the addition of a note
stating that they do not occur in BC despite some previous
literature reference to the contrary.
A useful addition to the checklist would have been a numeric
"taxon code" for each species (and possibly genus & family).
Alphabetic taxon codes have been provided, and probably have
their uses (I have never used them, and so have not explored
their potential). The advantage of a numeric taxon code is that
computer sorting will retain the basic checklist order, which is
very useful when compiling databases of collection records.
Additional species can be inserted through use of decimal num-
bers until a completely new checklist is produced.
I compliment Qian and Klinka on their checklist, and congratu-
late them on completing the project despite the incredible
tedium involved.
ADOLF'S REPLY:
Cris,
I am glad that you are happy with your copy of Qian & Klinka's
Plants of British Columbia, and I am glad that I can post a
positive view of this publication. BEN has already dealt with
some taxonomic problems mentioned in my review. Check BEN # 9
for Vaccinium alaskense. In the same issue of BEN you will find
why listing synonyms such as "Uva-ursi uva-ursi" is a historical
atavism rather than a useful reference.
Vascular plants summary for British Columbia reveals some inter-
esting facts:
Authors Genera Species
Taylor & MacBryde (1977) 744 3137
Douglas et al. (1994) 720 2595
Qian & Klinka (1998) 565 2105
Although the taxonomical concept of genera and species is about
the same in all three publications, the numbers are strikingly
different. Taylor & MacBryde (1977) listed all vascular plants
ever reported in published literature (they gave over 1000
references for vascular plants only) and their list contains
accidental introductions, as well as some erroneous reports not
supported by voucher specimens. Douglas et al. (1994) based
their account on herbarium specimens and they excluded all
introductions of vascular plants, if the plant has not been
collected in the last 40 years. They also discussed all excluded
species and gave the reason for excluding each particular
species. Qian & Klinka (1998) should have done the same for
their excluded species.
Literature cited:
Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, & G.B. Straley. 1994. The vascular
plants of British Columbia: Part 4 - Monocotyledons. Special
Report Series No. 4. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 257
p.
Qian, H. & K. Klinka. 1998. Plants of British Columbia: Scien-
tific and common names of vascular plants, bryophytes, and
lichens. UBC Press, Vancouver. xiv + 534 p.
Taylor, R.L. & B. MacBryde. 1977. Vascular plants of British
Columbia: A descriptive resource inventory. Technical Bul-
letin No. 4, UBC Botanical Gardens, UBC Press, Vancouver.
xxiv + 754 p.
WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL - NEW WEB SITE
From: Simon Nash <nash@wetlands.agro.nl> originally posted
on ECOSYS-L <ECOSYS-L@LISTSERV.GMD.DE>
We are pleased to announce the launch of a new World Wide Web
Site for WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL - AFRICA, EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST:
http://www.wetlands.agro.nl
The site contains Background information on the organization;
Information on Technical Programme activities; Publications and
reports; Up and coming meetings; Key links to other wetland-
related sites; News from the AEME region and detailed informa-
tion on the 2nd International Conference on Wetlands and
Development to be held later this year.
Our aim is to keep the site updated regularly, in particular the
news pages and information on our programme activities.
Future developments on the site will include the introduction of
a wetlands search tool and on-line access to the Ramsar Wetland
Sites database.
For further information contact:
Simon Nash
Wetlands International - AEME
PO Box 7002
6700 CA Wageningen
The Netherlands
Fax: 00 31 317 474712
e-mail: nash@wetlands.agro.nl
http://www.wetlands.agro.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------
Submissions, subscriptions, etc.: aceska@victoria.tc.ca
BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/
________________________________________________________________