Summer explains why Sansevieria is Dracaena.

[Stan]

Ok.
"

[Jkwinston]

I thought it interesting the way academics explain themselves, but if you saw my feedback you can tell that I do not accept that belonging to the family should mean a change of name. Pereskia aculeata, Parodia magnifica and Echinocereus rigidissimus, are all cactus and are all independently named. Jkw

[toditd]

I thought it interesting the way academics explain themselves, but if you saw my feedback you can tell that I do not accept that belonging to the family should mean a change of name. Pereskia aculeata, Parodia magnifica and Echinocereus rigidissimus, are all cactus and are all independently named. Jkw

The new classification not only classifies Dracaena/Sansevieria into the same family, but classifies them into the same genus. Being in the same genus they must have the same genus name. Dracaena, being the older name, takes precedence.

Yes, Pereskia aculeata, Parodia magnifica and Echinocereus rigidissimus are all in the Cactaceae family, but they are classified in different genera, and hence must have different genus names.

I'm sure you know this, so I'm a little confused with your comment.

[Geoff]

pretty good video and explanation. Harder for old timers like me since I still like to tell plants apart by how they look, but I understand why that may not have.a lot of meaning. I started getting into plants first with palms, and right when all the names were changing by the hundreds... so it was easy for me to adapt and I shook my head at all the older palm folk who simply would refuse to adopt the newer classification names... 'old farts' I would think. Well, now I'm the old fart and I can commiserate more effectively with the frustration and 'nostalgia' that arises from the continued name changing and upheavals... but that's the way things are always going to be.... hope that as DNA sequencing becomes so easy and cheap, there will finally be a stabilization to classification techniques... and maybe end to the name changing?.... .but something is likely to pop up that will change things again.

[Stan]

They said the flowers are identical. Although I never really noticed they were..being one is a shrub or tree and the other more like a perennial slogging along underground,I never saw them as the same.Funny that nobody else ever said they had identical flowers and fruits. Usually that's the old trusted prerequisite way and would have worked here too...the DNA part was the slam dunk..maybe.
Also,it seems the shrub came first and somehow evolved into the typical Sansevieria rhizome..that's pretty unusual change,but then again Ficus trees bayaning is nothing like creeping fig vines. But still...tree form and Sansy form..that's a real stretch.
What's kind of funny is how Pleome looks like a Dracena 1,000x more..and it's not one! Same for good old Beaucarnea...isnt Nolina. YET!

[Jkwinston]

I thought it interesting the way academics explain themselves, but if you saw my feedback you can tell that I do not accept that belonging to the family should mean a change of name. Pereskia aculeata, Parodia magnifica and Echinocereus rigidissimus, are all cactus and are all independently named. Jkw

The new classification not only classifies Dracaena/Sansevieria into the same family, but classifies them into the same genus. Being in the same genus they must have the same genus name. Dracaena, being the older name, takes precedence.

Yes, Pereskia aculeata, Parodia magnifica and Echinocereus rigidissimus are all in the Cactaceae family, but they are classified in different genera, and hence must have different genus names.

I'm sure you know this, so I'm a little confused with your comment.

No, I did know that they were placed in the same genus. Jkw

[abborean]

If plants can be strictly grouped and generically classified by appearance then it should remain that way in my humble opinion. Nothing wrong with two genera in a family as JK has pointed out. I believe this comes down to lumping by taxonomists. Strictly flower characteristics or strictly dna are methods of classification to illustrate relatedness. Naming is our way of categorizing like taxa. Another consideration is accepted usage. Have seen name changes based on criteria that appear useful, but in general usage the new naming convention is ignored. Manfreda and Agave are good examples.

[Gee.S]

Resist!!! LOL