Alberto, I would counter that the challenge before the PBS is to help define standards of knowledge for a particular, if ill-defined, group of plants rather than giving up and saying that boundaries are too confounding and should be left vague or abandoned altogether. I may be alone in this view. Other focused plant societies seem to deal with broader inclusiveness without throwing in the towel. The rock garden societies are good examples. But if the society goes about talking bamboo, hellebores or chia pets, it should be disclaimed that they are outside the scope of geophytes that is the mission of the PBS. No harm done. "The views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of management", etc. Dylan On 4 June 2012 17:35, Alberto Castillo <ezeizabotgard@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The exception rather than the rule in the family. > > I have another proposal (in good faith, I am not being sarcastic this > time). Why do not reconsider the question of time ago of changing the name > of Pacific Bulb Society? If it becomes the Pacific Plant Society then it > would cover all sorts of plants (which a lot of people posting here seems > to amply prefer) and then we can discuss bulbs sensu lato stating what they > are without any conflict and confusion with the hundreds of other types of > plants that have been mentioned, described, uploaded, advrtsed, etc. since > PBS was founded seemingly eons ago. > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > -- "*Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.*" ~ Gilbert K. Chesterton