A small part of the problem is that most people "Google" before they ask questions,quite often. Unfortunately, Google does not have all the answers,nor does it always have the best answers. There are many other search engines. Google has,more than ever,been giving the information which pays the most money. Many of the searches are populated with purveyors of goods and services,even to the point of no information,unless you ask for an extended search. It matters a great deal how you phrase a search. That is something learned by experience and there is little intuition involved. Phrasing a search differently can bring altogether different results,even when using the same words. Del --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Adam Fikso <adam14113@ameritech.net> wrote:
From: Adam Fikso <adam14113@ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: [pbs] Was Hybrids Species now Cleistogamy.
To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 4:17 PM
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
too!
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