At 02:31 PM 6/11/2005, you wrote: > >Jim M, responding to Paul's post, said: > >I my earlier post I largely ignored the role of pollinators. But the more I > >think about it, the more important the role of pollinators seems to be. > > Ummm, I am reluctant to disagree with either Paul or Jim M., but >it appears to me that something isn't being considered--pollenation is a >two way street, with the pollenated (the plant) deriving benefit, but the Ken, You've somewhat misrepresented my email if you are saying that I said that the pollinator was the only reason...... you REALLY need to reread my subject line. It ends with "Another variable"!! You make it sound like I dictated that this was the one true reason and no others exist. Who said it WASN'T a 2 way street? The word "another" indicates it is not the only one and never did I state that the reverse couldn't apply!!!!! You are making it sound like black and white when it is really shades of grey. To me our two ideas are not opposites as you seem to be so intent on saying, but rather more a scenario along the lines of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" and intertwined to the point where you really wouldn't say that one predated the other. Why is there a need to "disagree" as you repeatedly did within your email? To me, what you're doing is not disagreeing, but just putting another variable in the mix, so I am somewhat confused by the rather adversarial nature of your email? Regards. Paul Tyerman Canberra, Australia - USDA Zone Equivalent approx. 8/9 Growing an eclectic collection of plants from all over the world including Aroids, Crocus, Cyclamen, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Galanthus, Irises, Trilliums (to name but a few) and just about anything else that doesn't move!!