Locality data

Hannon othonna@gmail.com
Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:24:17 PDT
OK, point taken! I'll just add one related story of interest regarding
Muilla clevelandii, which is quite similar at a glance to Bloomeria crocea.
When I finally was able to look at both species side by side I found 2-3
excellent floral characters to separate them. They were not the characters
traditionally used in the floras to separate them but they were arguably

On 2 November 2012 13:57, Tony Avent <Tony@plantdelights.com> wrote:

> Dylan:
> I won't start a diatribe on plant keys, but last week, we were keying out
> a calylophus from Texas.  Using three different floras from Texas, we were
> sent to three different species.  All three keys were completely
> contradictory on a genus as small as calylophus.  Surely, we can turn out
> better taxonomists than that!
> Tony Avent
> Plant Delights Nursery @
> Juniper Level Botanic Garden
> 9241 Sauls Road
> Raleigh, North Carolina  27603  USA
> Minimum Winter Temps 0-5 F
> Maximum Summer Temps 95-105F
> USDA Hardiness Zone 7b
> email tony@plantdelights.com
> website  http://www.plantdelights.com/
> phone 919 772-4794
> fax  919 772-4752
> "I consider every plant hardy until I have killed it myself...at least
> three times" - Avent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org]
> On Behalf Of Hannon
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 4:50 PM
> To: Pacific Bulb Society
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Locality data
> Tony,
> 100% agreed on the way things are trending in academia. What I lament most
> in modern botany is that a large proportion of botanists is dismissive of
> the importance of producing useful products: keys that work, floras,
> revisions, monographs, information (books) available outside the arcane
> journals. The "internet age" has done very little to break the barriers
> between amateurs and the more scientific information they seek.
> The emphasis (read: funding) today is almost exclusively on theoretical
> modeling (cladograms), molecular level studies, etc. These scientists seem
> absorbed primarily in process and method rather than output, which they may
> see as static or instantly archaic. So understanding is increased in some
> areas but the audience that benefits by that understanding shrinks because
> of the evermore technical nature of the output and its venue.
> I would liken your Phlox flunkie to those who say that the organism is
> irrelevant-- its molecular history and variation are what matter, whether
> it be fish or fowl. "Let's sequence it before we form our views". Does that
> not show a similar ignorance and contempt for living things?
> Dylan
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/

More information about the pbs mailing list