What's new
By:
TerraForums - Carnivorous Plant Community

Welcome to TerraForums — a long-running carnivorous plant community established in 2001. Register for free to join the conversation, ask questions, and connect with growers from around the world.

Splitter or lumper

Share this page

superimposedhope

superimposedhope

Somewhat Unstable
Ok for those who know what i am speaking of:
Are you a splitter or a lumper?

Personally I am a lumper unless there is an obvious reason. Especially i know there is tooooooo much splitting going on in the Cactus Family.

If you ever have the time or are curious check out how many Cereus divisions there are. Cereus are the majority of columnar cactus, but also includes epiphytes.

Joe
 
Say What?
confused.gif
 
Lumper, certainly. The thrust of taxonomy is to unite wherever possible in my opinion. That isn't to say that splitting is part of the picture when it is called for and supported, but generally speaking I favor lumping.
 
Some taxonomists seek to unite species according to their similarities.  They are "lumpers".  They lump together similar forms.

Splitters look for and concentrate on the differences, visable or otherwise, and use these differences to seggregate one species from another.  They split the species up, assigning new species names to the different forms.

Each has its time and place.
 
ok. let's say there's a new species. would you rather group it in an existant group or would you make another group?

I don't know what I am :P
 
I have noticed that Cps are pretty well done. Certainly the splitters would have found another Genus for N. lowii or pygmy drosera. Or made one up. Those darn splitters are a pain in the butt.

Joe
 
lumper, however i think that Polypompholyx should become a genus once agian and that it's old members should be added and taken out of the utricularia genus.
 
Lumping and splitting remind me of assimilation and accommodation, two concepts developed by a pioneer in the study of child development, Jean Piaget, who is most well known for his theory of how children learn.  Assimilation refers to making associations between something new and that which is already known.  For example, imagine a child who is familiar with dogs, but has not seen a horse before.  If he sees a horse for the first time and says it’s a dog, the child is assimilating (Lumping.  The taxonomist sees a new form of a plant and puts it in an existing species.).  Accommodation refers to changing what is known when one’s existing knowledge is insufficient for solving a problem (Splitting.  If the existing species are insufficient, the taxonomist creates a new one.).  Thus, new situations are assimilated into old ideas, and new ideas are created to accommodate new experiences.  There has to be a balance between assimilation and accommodation.  If there is too much assimilation, nothing new is learned.  If there’s too much accommodation, there’s too much to remember

Taxonomists have to make decisions about lumping or splitting all the time.  I don’t know whether they should be recognized for regularly performing fundamental functions of learning or whether they just haven’t left childhood.  (I hope taxonomists will assimilate this as a joke.)
 
I'm a splitter when things need to be slpit, and a lumper when things need to be lumped.
for example... I'm a lumper a lot of the time because I think it's ridiculous to say something's a new species just because EVERY SINGLE THING is the same EXCEPT that there's an extra cell on it's leaves (ok ok, I'm exaggerating :P but you get the point)
and I'd be a splitter with those kinds of things that there are 10000 different ways it can look.
for example.... there are many plants that are "extreamly varibale" that may have lobed leaves, some with 3 lobes, others with 5, some with no lobes, some with spikes, etc....
and yet there are other plants that you literally have to look under a microscope to tell appart (or worse yet.. DNA testing)

isn't that just ridiculous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top