Steve Hinkson wrote:
> Fear not, it isn't as bad as it sounded. Stephen just misread his reference. While they do consider any sexual
> cross a hybrid, they have a set of rules to govern how that is designated. What you and I would call cultivars,
> they've invented new jargon for. But interspecies hybrids are still designated by the ol' "X" between the species
> names, and inter generic by an "X" before the grex name.
> It has, it seems, if this set of rules is to be accepted, taken ALL meaning out of the commonly used term hybrid.
Exactly my thought.
> They are trying to make rules for "Nothotaxa" (the silly new genus names people give to intergeneric hybrids) and I
> suppose that's a good thing?
Thanks - also for pointing the way to art. H3 which I hadn't read
(stupid of me).
I'll just try to remember that the words used in my valued books
are now out of date and superseded by much better new botanical
definitions. Wonder if I should replace my books - but then, I
probably would have to replace them again in a few years.
But the fact that they are still using the old X is a consolation
(for the moment at least - who knows what it will be in some 10
And I also learned that the usage of the term "hybrid" for
animals has been different from the way it has been used for
Well - I suppose nobody can stop progress. The heck with