User talk:CubicFeet

Hello

Welcome!

Hello, CubicFeet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deduplication

Hi CubeFeet, you may well be correct, but could you please explain to me why you have deleted categories in the cultigen and other article? Thanks. How do they fit into the following:

Duplicate categorization rule

If a page is contained logically in both a category and a subcategory of that category, it must be considered whether it should still be placed directly into the first (parent) category. The rule normally applied is as follows, based on the definition of distinguished category as given above:

If category B is a non-distinguished subcategory of category A, then pages belonging to category B (directly or through further subcategories) are not placed directly into category A. If category B is a distinguished subcategory of category A, then pages belonging to category B are placed directly into category A if otherwise appropriate.

For example, Angers Bridge is not placed directly into Category:Bridges, because it belongs to the non-distinguished (systematic) subcategory Category:Bridges in France. On the other hand, pages are not excluded from Category:Bridges in New York City on the grounds that they also belong to Category:Toll bridges in New York City, since the latter is a distinguished subcategory.

Granitethighs (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Granitethighs, thank you for the question. As I understand it, it concerns these two edits: horticultural botany and cultigen. As you yourself explain duplication is unwanted,so if something belong in the category category:botanical nomenclature it should not also be in the category category:scientific nomenclature: the latter category should hold only the various subcategories, items that could be in such a subcategory (if there were enough such items to rate the existence of a subcategory) and, perhaps, those items that are common to several of the subcategories.

A further problem in categorising "horticultural botany" is that it appear to contain little or nothing that is not also treated in Cultivated plant taxonomy; for the moment it appears to be a subset of the other article. There may well be aspects of the topic that would rate it being included in the category botany (or a subcategory thereof), but the page does not (yet) include any such material. The categorisation of cultigen is even more problematic: cultigens are not a subset of cultivars, etc. CubicFeet (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal protection

I think what you have said is confusing because both cultivars and their names can be protected under Plant Breeders Rights legislation. The words need to be very carefully chosen here. Granitethighs (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always important to choose words very carefully. The Plant Breeders Rights legislation does protect plants, and can do it by a designation that is identical to the cultivar name, but a plant can be protected if it is not a cultivar (and does not have a cultivar name). I have rephrased, hoping to be more precise. - CubicFeet (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still dont think what you are saying is clear: the first few sentences seem contradictory in this section. Growers and plant breeders have always been keen to "protect" their cultivars from people who might want to "steal" propagate and sell their work. In 1961 Plant Breeders (Variety) Rights was established to allow them to do this. It allowed them to choose a name which could not be used by any other grower and it allowed for legal action should anyone (other than them) sell that particular cultivar. That is what legal protection is - so cultivars can be legally protected. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Granitethighs (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that same grower can protect that same plant in the same manner (under the same legislation) under another name (not a cultivar name). - CubicFeet (talk)

Latest cultigen changes

I think that, on the whole your changes are an improvement. However, I'm not so sure about the changes to the "Usage in botany" section which I have now re-written. I agree it could have been better. I do not think that the Botanical Code takes precedence over the Cultivated Plant Code, with the latter being supplementary only is an accurate interpretation - especially in the context in which you added it. My understanding is that each Code has its own independent governing authority. Certainly the two authorities consult from time to time (or individual members do) but in what sense does the Botanical Code "take precedence"? Also the expression "supplementary only" does not communicate anything useful, is unclear, and to my mind inaccurate even derogatory. Yes, cultivar names are added to an existing Latin name (but not always as in Apple 'Jonathan') but they fully serve the purpose for which they were created. Do you agree that plants may be given names under either or both Codes - or would you want to change the wording here? Could you please reply on my talk page. And, by the way, is your specific epithet Janet? --Granitethighs 08:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm not altogether happy with the third para and wonder if it could be made clearer. I'm not sure philosophically whether we can talk of a "named cultivar" - this is like a "named species": I'm inclined to think that a botanist would say that a species is only a species when it has been named as such - so "named species" becomes a tautology. Anyway - let me know if you have botanical friends who might have an opinion on this. Also, if cultigens can be named by several methods/systems of nomenclature then it might be as well to enumerate them briefly.--Granitethighs 09:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. perhaps, the Botanical Code takes precedence over the Cultivated Plant Code, with the latter being supplementary only could be phrased better. Obviously each Code is being edited and changed separately. However, the ICNCP operates within the framework of the ICBN; almost any name governed by the ICNCP consists of a botanical name plus one or more epithets (Apple 'Jonathan' and generic names of graft hybrids excepted). If the botanical name changes (for whatever reason) so does the cultivar or Group name. So in a very real sense the ICNCP is supplementary only, as it affects only the epithets in a cultivar or Group name; it does not govern the whole name. I will take a second look at the wording.

No, a plant may not be given names under both Codes. Or to be more exact, any person is allowed only one taxonomic viewpoint, and with that taxonomic viewpoint goes only one name. So, a particular taxon may be regarded as a species by one person, as a subspecies by another, a variety by a third, and as a Group by a fourth. For each viewpoint a name may exist, but only one name can be used as being correct by any one person.

And no, a botanist would not think of a species as being a species when it has been named. There are thousands (tens of thousands?) recognized species that have not been named.

As to enumerating the ways cultigens can be named by several methods/systems of nomenclature, well I am not stopping you. I have no particular interest in doing so (not even sure if this has stabilized). However, to me it is important to be accurate: the ICNCP is a very important tool in naming cultivated plants, but the world goes as it wills and also uses other methods. - CubicFeet (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tautonym

Would you revisit tautonym? I'm tempted to just revert your edit, but most of your edits to nomenclatural topics seem well thought out (although sometimes nitpicky). I'm not sure I could do a better job, but I do object to the way you've phrased some things.

I really object to "An example of a botanical tautonym that does not exist is 'Larix larix'". This makes it sound like Larix larix is just an example contrived for illustrative purposes. Larix larix does (or did) exist. While it can be ignored for priority purposes, the code does address this kind of name. There would be no reason to define a category, "effectively published names", if the members were exactly the same as "validly published names". Effectively, but not validly published names do "exist", even if they can be largely ignored. Botanical tautonyms show up in historical literature and are still tracked in modern nomenclatural databases (e.g. IPNI & Tropicos). While the code may be retroactive, history is not.

I also don't like the broader statement, "no tautonym exists". I understand why the ICZN changed the term to "tautonymous names", but it seems overly nitpicky to declare on this basis that tautonyms don't exist. The concept behind tautonyms/tautonymous names remains the same, although it's application has broadened. In everyday speech, zoologists still (in my experience) talk about "tautonyms".192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larix larix does not exist, not under the ICBN. It is prohibited from existing and it cannot exist. Names that are not validly published do not exist, under the ICBN. They may exist in some other context, just like 192.104.39.2 exists in some context, but then it should be discussed in that other, particular context. From a formal, nomenclatural perspective, there is no difference between Larix larix and 192.104.39.2. It is possible to discuss such things from a historical or metaphysical perspective, but that should be a separate matter. - CubicFeet (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]