Identification: Call for comments: List of Agreed Acer Species Names

Discussion in 'Maples' started by emery, Nov 21, 2019.

  1. emery

    emery Contributor Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    Normandie, France
    At the International Maple Symposium in 2017 the Maple Society's Acer species working group was formed with the task of compiling a list of names withing the genus for which there is broad agreement.

    Chaired by Koen Camelbeke of Wespelaar Arboretum and including UBC's own Douglas Justice as well as other internationally recognized experts, the group has published a preliminary list of agreed names.

    Now it's time for your input! We're soliciting opinions and comments from around the world, from the general public, enthusiasts everywhere, Maple Society members, botanists and laypeople. If a different name is used where you live, or if you have any comments about the list in general, we want to hear about it!

    You can look at the list as well as download it, and see how to make comments, at

    Accepted Names for the Genus Acer | The Maple Society

    Here are a few pictures of maples with accepted names...

    Flowers of A. tenellum:
    Atenellum01.jpg
    A. laevigatum in Spring:
    AlaevigatumSpring.jpg
    A. shirasawanum in Spring:
    AshirasawanumSpring.jpg
    A. triflorum in Autumn:
    AtriflorumFall02.jpg AtriflorumFall01.jpg
    The comment period is only until February 2020, so I hope you will comment soon!

    -Emery
     
  2. Sulev

    Sulev Active Member

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Estonia
    Is this list of maple species or maple names, that are copyrighted by The Maple Society?
    If this list is copyrighted, then it is difficult to comment the list without "copying" at least part of it here, and this may be violation of the copyright law.
     
  3. emery

    emery Contributor Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    Normandie, France
    The document is copyrighted, which means (as I understand it) that unauthorized reproduction is prohibited: it is the intellectual property of the Maple Society. Since the Maple Society has called for public discussion, that explicitly authorizes anyone to reproduce, and modify for the purposes of commenting, it so long as they don't claim ownership. You could put the list on your own site, for example, so that it gained a wider distribution, but it is still identified as the IP of the Society. It is available freely to download.

    I don't think anyone can copyright species names!

    All this said, the truth is I just stuck the copyright in out of habit, in this context of calling for public comment on something designed to be modified (into version 7 presumably) I'm not sure it has much meaning beyond "The Maple Society reserves the right to be identified as the author of this work."
     
  4. Sulev

    Sulev Active Member

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Estonia
    AFAIK, copyright is usually in effect for both full document and for its parts.
     
  5. emery

    emery Contributor Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    Normandie, France
    Well, if you're a copyright lawyer and are proposing free advice, I'm happy to receive it! :)
     
  6. Michael F

    Michael F Paragon of Plants Forums Moderator 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,681
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    Britain zone 8/9
    I see several of the historical lumps involving previous Acer saccharum s.l. and Acer cappadocicum s.l. have been broken up again into separate species; this is excellent. But one more needs doing; Acer tataricum s.l. should have Acer ginnala (NE Asia; including vars. aidzuense in Japan and theiferum in China) split off as a separate species, restricting Acer tataricum to SE Europe and SW Asia. There is a roughly 3,000 km range gap between these two, and while closely related, they are readily identifiable from each other, at least in cultivation.

    Conversely, I suspect the number of species accepted in the Acer japonicum alliance, and in the snakebark maples, may be too high; further examination may be helpful.

    Acer campestre: consider adding subsp. campestre L. (1753), subsp. leiocarpum (Opiz) Schwer. (1893) and subsp. marsicum (Guss.) Hayek (1925)

    List corrections:
    Acer amamiense: publication date (missing on list) - 2000.
    Acer binzayedii: publication date (missing on list) - 2017.
    Acer chiangdaoense: publication date (missing on list) - 1992.
    Acer ginnala: publication date - 1857.
    Acer lobelii: publication date (missing on list) - 1819.
    Acer mazandaranicum: publication date (missing on list) - 2008.
    "Acer negundon" var. texanum - typo alert!
    Acer okamotoanum: publication date (missing on list) - 1917.
    Acer osmastonii: publication date (missing on list) - 1908.
    Acer pseudosieboldianum: publication date (missing on list) - 1904.
    Acer pseudowilsonii: publication date (missing on list) - 2010.
    Acer sosnowskyi: publication date (missing on list) - 1948.
    Acer tenuifolium: publication date (missing on list) - 1916.
    Acer undulatum: publication date (missing on list) - 1976.

    Species with accepted subspecies or varieties: the nominate subspecies and variety (autonyms) should also be added in each case, e.g.:
    Acer caesium
    Acer caesium
    subsp. caesium (add!)
    Acer caesium subsp. giraldii

    Be cautious: any combination authored by A.E.Murray. His 'research' was skimpy in extremis, basically just long lists of combinatio novae and subspp. novae without any elucidation or justification whatsoever, all published in the journal Kalmia (sole author, A.E.Murray, editor A.E.Murray, publisher A.E.Murray). Like the infinite number of monkeys typing Shakespeare, he produced so many new names that some likely hit target, but most didn't.

    Hybrids. None listed; should they be added too?
     
  7. emery

    emery Contributor Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    Normandie, France
    Hi Michael,

    Very helpful comment for which I thank you, I will pass it directly to the group in case you haven't already done so.

    Personally I agree with your point re autonyms. I think all dendrologists concerned are aware of the details surrounding Murray.

    Re hybrids, they are beyond the scope of this current work.

    Perhaps other contributors will reinforce your point re the A. tataricum complex! In any case the group will be very glad for your contribution.
     
  8. AlainK

    AlainK Well-Known Member Forums Moderator Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    nr Orléans, France (E.U.)
    The discussion is much too above my level to participate, but:

    That made me think of my Acer x zoechense 'Annae': there is apparently still a debate on which is one of the parents (the mailman?...). Yet, it has a "personality" of its own and doesn't ressemble other maples so closely as other hybrids...
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2019
  9. Ron B

    Ron B Paragon of Plants 10 Years

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    WA USA (Z8)
    Note spelling of the cultivar name is 'Annae'.
     
  10. AlainK

    AlainK Well-Known Member Forums Moderator Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    nr Orléans, France (E.U.)
    Oops. Thanks, edited.
     
  11. Michael F

    Michael F Paragon of Plants Forums Moderator 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,681
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    Britain zone 8/9
    And the hybrid name Acer × zoeschense :-)

    The debate is whether it is a hybrid A. campestre × either A. cappadocicum, or A. lobelii; Mitchell records that it suckers profusely, which is an A. cappadocicum feature, so that is more likely as the second parent.
     
  12. Gomero

    Gomero Well-Known Member Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Southwest France
    I support your proposal on A. Tataricum, I would add also Acer semenovii to be considered as a separate species, as Van Gelderen, in Maples of the World, writes that it is “quite distinct and easily separated from both relatives in all morphological characteristics, as well as having much smaller leaves with no traces of variegation such as demonstrated by A. tartaricum ssp. ginnala. … It grows as a very densely branched shrub.”
    There are several other complexes that require further work like the Acer laevigatum and Acer campbelli.
    Gomero
     
  13. Michael F

    Michael F Paragon of Plants Forums Moderator 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,681
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    Britain zone 8/9
    Thanks! Interesting point on A. [t. subsp.] semenovii, though I'd say its argument for distinction needs to be more from the geographically and climatologically much closer A. tataricum, than from A. ginnala. I don't think variegation can be considered important, unless it can be verified as a stable, uniform character of all A. ginnala populations in the wild (which I doubt very much; the Flora of China doesn't mention it as a character). If Acer semenovii is to be considered as a separate species, one would also want to look again at the geographically similar case for re-splitting Acer trautvetteri from Acer heldreichii (I grew up with them listed as separate species, but can see the case for lumping them on the grounds that they're almost indistinguishable).
     

Share This Page