Was Hybrids Species now Cleistogamy.

Adam Fikso adam14113@ameritech.net
Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:17:27 PDT
Maybe some of the problem here is that people don't know how to bring 
themselves up to date without taking a course or something  Merely typing in 
key words such as-- cleistogamy definition--- into one's browser will 
usually bring up enough information to clarify the nature of most 
discussions here in this forum without having to go over basics.

Where the basics are obscure or tucked away in scholarly journals  or 
embedded in large quantities of complex information that need to be absorbed 
before understanding is possible--that can be teased out in this forum, as 
I've come to understand it.  I think that some people may have felt that i 
was being critical of Jim Waddick,.  I was not.!
 I am with him on this in large measure. Although there are no dumb or 
stupid questions, perhaps--from people wo have begun to trouble themselves 
hunting for answers.  Sometimes, a certain minimum level of preparedness is 
in order  for entry to a conversation or discourse.  And some questions 
perhaps show that the questioner has done minimal homework, or comes from a 
very uninformed background.

Sometimes a referral of the questioner to an available  text is in order to 
prepare  for a discussion.  Other times, opening up a new line of discussion 
may be more appropriate.

As Jim Waddick noted, the question about species designation of natural 
hybrids opens a whole set of issues, but also as he noted , it's an old 
problem.  Taxonomists have dealt with it before, and there are rules for 
dealing with it,  especially in the narrowly nomenclatural aspects of it. 
Sometimes when the entire "species" needs to be redesignated and reconceived 
, as in paleontology, because the "species" was known only from a footprint, 
or was the result of a previous misidentification, there are rules for that 

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but it  does need to be informed 
with basic knowledge --or, if one is questioning basic known data in one's 
speculation then the questioner needs to show that the basics have been 
considered, assessed and have good reasons for rejecting them to go beyond 
the known database. I thought that Jim was objecting to insufficiently 
grounded speculation.

Some of this is probably unavoidable.   The internet is an enormous library 
and is not always used.   it should perhaps, sometimes, be consulted before 
bringing  certain questions to this venue.

  I think the moderator might have something important to say here, and 
maybe some issues just take time and forbearance.  I'm a relative newbie 
here-- only about 2 years, and I've had to learn the conventions and rules 
here and still screw up.  e.g., not trimming prior comment

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Waddick" <jwaddick@kc.rr.com>
To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:10 AM
Subject: [pbs] Was Hybrids Species now Cleistogamy.

> >I find Jim Waddick's comments somewhat at odds with the spirit of
>>this list, and believe there is as much chance of learning something

More information about the pbs mailing list