I am sure Kew links to Google images only as a convenience for its users, a common practice among online plant databaes, e.g. the California Native Plant Link Exchange (http://www.cnplx.info/). And in fact Google images is incredibly convenient, if sometimes inaccurate. I suspect that computer scientists, notwithstanding their favorite phrase "garbage in, garbage out" are often distracted by the volume of information they deal with from its quality. As far as Wikipedia goes, although it is also often useful, the editors of Brittanica have pretty convincingly rebutted Nature's claims about accuracy: http://72.14.253.104/search/… It is an amusing irony that this rebuttal shows how prone to error is the peer-reviewed journal itself. (For the sake of accuracy, I should note that the Nature piece was "news", not a "letter", and therefore not necessarily reviewed by people who know what they're talking about). Max Oakland > Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:02:16 -0000 > From: "JohnRCrellin" <jrc@crellin.org.uk> > Subject: Re: [pbs] World Checklist of Monocotyledons > > > "If it's on the Internet it must be true" syndrome, I'm afraid. Coupled with > the fact that Google Images is very definitely not their (Google's) finest > hour. > > I was never more horrified than listening to a radio program from a primary > school extolling use of the internet for class work - and at least one pupil > effectively saying "I know I can believe the facts I find on the Internet" ! >