Very Important New Book

Use this forum to announce, discuss, and review literature, preferably print, relevant to our xeric gardening interests.

Moderator: DesertDweller

User avatar
Agavemonger
Ready to Bolt
Posts: 961
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:58 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Very Important New Book

#26

Post by Agavemonger »

I guess that is my whole point. Don't judge the work until it is complete and in print. And don't diss what is offered up for free for your early perusal. Just enjoy it and try to understand what is being presented! And don't forget to have a little respect! D))

The Monger
User avatar
Gee.S
Site Admin
Posts: 9568
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
USDA Zone: 9b
Contact:

Re: Very Important New Book

#27

Post by Gee.S »

Actually, that has been my point all along (see Post #5), nice to see you've turned a corner and are finally on board. :))

And the only respect I care about here, is that being directed toward other members of this forum.
Agave
"American aloe plant," 1797, from Greek Agaue, proper name in mythology (mother of Pentheus), from agauos "noble," perhaps from agasthai "wonder at".

"Some talk the talk, others walk the walk, but I stalk the stalk"
User avatar
agavegreg
Ready to Bolt
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:46 pm

Re: Very Important New Book

#28

Post by agavegreg »

I really think that the whole genus is very difficult to organize into a single, comprehensive piece of work, and I still tip my hat to Gentry. He spent a considerable chunk of his life studying these plants, and realized the difficulty of nomenclature. Granted there are some curious associations in his work, but his classification system is primarily based on floral characteristics and not vegetative ones as previous authors had done.

I would like to commend Fritz on his attempt to organize the genus as well since it is a daunting task. I have scanned it a little bit more and still find some curious associations, not to mention the puzzling use of sections and series. Although my schooling in nomenclature was long ago, I simply do not see the point in utilizing the rank of series where it does not appear to be warranted. Fritz seems to be well versed in the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature, but my first question is on page 14, where he lists section Choritepalae with the type as Agave ellemeetiana which follows what Gentry had written. He then names the series Subintegrifoliae and not Choritepalae, an inconsistency with most of the others where the section name and series name are the same. I also noted that he does the same with section Geminiflorae and then series Filiferae. Does anybody see an explanation for this?

I would like to know what his basis is for some of the species alignments. He aligns A. chrysoglossa, gilbertii, manantlanicola, ocahui, vazquezgarciae, and vilmoriniana with A. nizandensis and not A. attenuata? He pulls A. vic.-reg., and the other similar species, out of the Marginatae, fine, but leaves the very dissimilar A. pelona and A. potrerana in the Marginatae?

With respect to the organization of the book, if it follows a similar format that the yucca books follow, then the agave book will be mostly worthless as a taxonomic tool. Currently, there is no rhyme or reason for the way the sections/series are presented. He puts the keys after the section, which is unconventional and bizarre to say the least. I know of no other flora, monograph or comprehensive treatment that puts the key last. There are mislabeled pictures, misidentified plants and flat out wrong taxonomy. The picture for the Agave gigantensis entry shows a plant that is clearly not A. gigantensis. Also, Agave stricta does not occur in SLP, and anybody who takes the time to look at the floral characters of those plants would know that. If it is an unfinished work in progress, then it would be better left off the internet to prevent the perpetuation of misidentified plants and sent to agave taxonomists for review.

I have met Fritz only once and have no personal feelings one way or the other, but do not like to see incorrect information being tossed out when the misinformation is so easily accessed and given the impression of being the final word.
Image
Post Reply