Androsace - 2012

I've often wondered why there has been no mention of Douglasias in this thread. They are amongst my favourite Nth american plants. Also curious how you all feel about the Brits reclassifying them as Androsace species. This is causing some problems with seed importation here as our MAF allowed seed list still has for example Douglasia nivalis as permitted, but the same seed from the AGS is held up at the border because it is labelled Androsace nivalis.

Senecio, welcome to the forum!  There is mention (and nice photos) of Douglasia elsewhere on this forum, for example, see this topic:
http://nargs.org/smf/index.php?topic=747.msg10480#msg10480
...and:
http://nargs.org/smf/index.php?topic=761.msg10858#msg10858

I think most North Americans stick by Douglasia, as we do by Dodecatheon, both are fully supported genera in the Flora of North America (FNA).
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=110869
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=110733

These things can be reclassified all they want by entities outside the range of the govering body of work for this continent (FNA), but I'm sticking with Douglasia.  The FNA link on Douglasia has a good summary of where it stands on this taxonomic issue.  I don't always agree with FNA, such as with their lumping Lewisia tweedyi into Cistanthe with several other Calyptridiums and a soupçon of former Calandrinia, seems totally absurd, nor am I crazy about the break up and reclassification of all American asters into a bevy of other genera, but generally speaking, I defer to the major governing floras.

I think quite a few Brits would prefer to stick with Douglasia too. If a name is helpful to those who grow the plants then changing it should be very carefully considered. Actaea and Cimicifuga is a classic example, with all due deference to the fine botanists who have studied these plants.

Tim wrote:

I think quite a few Brits would prefer to stick with Douglasia too. If a name is helpful to those who grow the plants then changing it should be very carefully considered. Actaea and Cimicifuga is a classic example, with all due deference to the fine botanists who have studied these plants.

Well, that's good to hear Tim.  I would think that any Primula fan, familiar with Eurpean and Asian Primula, upon seeing Dodecatheon, would believe it is ludicrous to lump them into Primula, they're so utterly distinctive a genus, even within a geographical location such as North America that has its share of regular Primula as well.  I know of Dionysia species that are far more "primula-like" that any Dodecatheon, so it seems preposterous to me that Dodecatheon would be suggested to be subsumed by Primula. I give no due deference to so-called "fine botanists".  The example is Actaea and Cimicifuga is perfect... Actaea (2 species in FNA) has seed structures as berries, whereas, Cimicifuga (in both N.America to Asia) has seed structures as dry follicles (dry seed capsules), speak for themselves as to some of the seemingly nonsensical taxonomy going on these days.  Here again, FNA supports Actaea as Actaea.

Androsace cylindrica x hirtella.