I know this discussion keeps coming up over and over again. I have two major reasons why I don't think it is or should be an issue. One is that as Bernie worded it, there seem to be a number of plants that "look as if [they] 'should' be a geophyte." I think most of us tend to look at all the species in several of the big geophyte families, whether or not the species in question is itself a geophyte, as if they were at minimum "honorary" geophytes. I'm not a botanist and not a full-blooded enough hobbyist to know whether *all* amaryllids, for example, are geophytic. But it seems that merely by saying 'amaryllid' we presume it is a geophyte. (And as additional "proof" for my reason #1: The converse seems to be that many of us on any of the bulb lists seem disinclined to discuss those geophytes that don't fall into one of the major geophytically full plant families, in particular if they are not monocots and if that family isn't known for producing many geophytic species.) The other is that, compared to people on many of the other plant lists, as a group, geophytophiliacs and -maniacs seem to be inordinately knowledgeable, as well as growers of, just about every other kind of plant as well. So if some questionable non-geophytes creep into the discussions or onto the wiki, it seems only a natural by-product of the type of plant grower who loves "bulbs". I'd almost expect it now. Even the fact that we have people like Alberto who _can_ instantly tells us if something is technically a geophyte or not is just a case in point of what I'm saying. ;-) --Lee Poulsen Pasadena area, California, USDA Zone 10a On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Ernie O'Byrne wrote: > So, where is the border line; or is it a continuum? Is it because the > Scoliopus has simple roots? So Tropaeolum speciosum would be a geophyte > because it has, what, rhizomes? So does that mean that everything with > rhizomes is subject to discussion on this list? What about grasses > having > rhizomes? Seems that whatever definition one could pick for "geophyte" > there > could always be found exceptions that we would like to include or > exclude > from discussion on the list. > > Scoliopus looks as if it "should" be a geophyte, if it, indeed, is > not, so I > am not offended if it is discussed. Don't misunderstand, though. > Alberto was > probably not offended, either, but just bringing up an interesting > point. >