miremonster

Hello snowy,
according to informations from literature and some plants that I cultivate or I've seen, E. uruguayensis comprises lots of different forms - with long or short, narrow or broad, dark or light green leaves, brownish or reddish tint... Surely these botanists are correct who understand E. horemanii as a synonym of E. uruguayensis (Haynes & Holm-Nielsen 1994), and E. horemanii and this E. uruguayensis listed by sellers are only 2 forms among many others.
But there remains a basal problem: When we avoid such synonyms, it may be right in terms of botany, but then we cannot easily label different cultivated forms of the same species.

snowy

miremonster thanks for your reply.

In that case would it not be more correct to refer to it as E. uryguayensis var. horemanii, much like C. crispatula var. balansae?

However I do understand that for the sake of practicality horemanii has far greater recognition amongst hobbyists and dealers.

I am not trying to nitpick, rather just curious as I am starting to see plants that previously would have been called a 'green horemanii' now labeled as E. uryguayensis and I wonder if they are 'real' uryguayensis or simply a hybrid that resembles the 'original'.

miremonster

<<<In that case would it not be more correct to refer to it as E. uryguayensis var. horemanii, much like C. crispatula var. balansae?<<<
This could be a solution. But it would depend on an existence of more or less distinct populations in the nature showing the characters of E. horemanii. We only can wait what taxonomists will find out, the knowledge about natural populations of Echinodorus-species is still insufficient. An alternative could be an informal name, e.g. E. uruguayensis "horemanii green", a cultivar name, or a designation referring to the geographical origin.
Sadly, in many cases the origins of cultivated Echinodorus (except for many cultivars) are unknown (surely the commercial collectors and exporters have no interest to blab it) , so it is difficult to detect if the plants are selections or hybrids from culture or naturals (or natural hybrids).

Cavan Allen

Incorrect: Fissiden
Correct: Fissidens

Reason: The plural of shrimp doesn't have an S at the end, but this does.

miremonster

A similar case like Fissidens:

Incorrect: Anubia
Correct: Anubias (it is a singular form)

zQ.

How about the Moss ? Some time i heard people call them Moos.

miremonster

Hello zQ.,
"Moos" is German for moss, or, more precisely, for "bryophyte". The 3 main groups of bryophytes are called in German:
"Laubmoose" ("leafy mosses") = mosses
"Lebermoose" = liverworts
"Hornmoose" = hornworts

Tausendblatt

Sorry to post in a really old thread, but this really grinds my gears:

Incorrect: Elodea crispa
Correct: Lagarosiphon major

Lagarosiphon is the correct genus.

Incorrect: Elodea densa, Egeria desna, Anacharis densa
Correct: Egeria densa

Anacharis is an incorrect and obsolete GENUS name! Elodea is an entirely different genus. Desna is a misspelled name.

It really grinds my gears when I speak of the true Elodea genus, but people think I am talking about Egeria densa.

I don't know what is the correct name for sago pondweed, I don't know if it is potamogeton or that stuckenia genus. Stuckenia is often cited as having a single species, and sometimes it has 3 or 4 included. Sadly, sago pondweed is not common in the hobby...

K Randall

Hi Cavan, I know this is a REALLY old thread, but this is actually still wrong, (having been there) the plant is named after Lake Nanren, where it was originally found (and as far as I know, it is still the only place it has been found) The "shan" part just means "lake". So "Nanrenshan" means "Lake Nanren". "Nanjenshan" doesn't exist.

A couple of things I've noticed here is that people regularly use "Subwassertang" as a common name for the gametophyte form of Lomariopsis lineata. The common name is actually Susswassertang, where, in German, the "ss" in "Suss" would be the German letter Eszett, a letter that we cannot produce on an American keyboard. (there is also an umlaut over the u, but who's counting!. There is no "b" sound on the word. It is pronounced (approximately) soos-vasser-tahng, and means, literally, "sweet water seaweed" or "fresh water seaweed". An apt name for the little plant! Of course, this is one of the few cases where the latin name is easier to prounounce than the common name, so mabe we should stick with that!

Another thing that I find slightly amusing, but mostly annoying,(and this happens occasionally here, but I've been approached many times at club meetings with people using this same terminology) is that some people will call a plant, "Tropica 53" or at best, "Ludwigia 123" (don't check the numbers... I just made them up). The point is, these are just Tropica catolog numbers they mean NOTHING else. They are not like the "L" numbers used for unidentified catfish. If I don't happen to have a Tropica catolog under my arm, and as much as I respect the company, I rarely carry one around, I have NO idea what these numbers mean. They shouldn't be used unless you are ordering a plant from Tropica.

Finally! I recently saw a positing of C. Cordata "KR01" for sale. While I'm flattered, this is my own personal locality labeling, and means nothing to anyone else.

Cavan Allen

Oh yes, I do remember you mentioning that in your talk. Think it's worth changing the PF entry for that?

Yes, using catalog numbers is a very bad practice. Especially when the real scientific name is known! I think that's often used for the sake of 'convenience', when it really isn't so much at all. Scientific names are not -usually- that difficult.

Another most unfortunate practice is called _all_ small Eleocharis species "DHG". At least with HC (Hemianthus callitrichoides), it only refers to ONE plant. Not so with the former, which is often applied to a range of species of different growth characteristics and sizes, resulting in unnecessary confusion. I like to think we can all do a little better.