While it is by no means re-assuring in this context please do be assured you are not alone in the USA in having exponents of biological nonsense, you should see the nonsense which comes out of the unelected Mandarins employed at vast expense in the European Union's multifarious departments, on second thoughts perhaps it best if you didn't. Nature as a publication is distributed widely and draws is contributors from the same arena. One has to wonder why the Editor of a publication like this which holds itself out to be a serious forum has not subjected such an article to peer revue? It rather begs the question, "what qualifies him/her to be editor of a supposedly prestigious publication".Stable doors and horses perhaps, never the less could the Editor not be approached with the view to accepting an article in order to make the alternative case and rebuttals? Following the two contributors' logic, here in Scotland our ex situ international conservation collection of the genus Lilium would be still born, we do not have any indigenous taxa in this genus but are able to make good use hopefully of the work of many worldwide horticulturists' previous and current efforts investigating cultivation requirements for this and related genera. But for this effort the two sp. nova discovered may never have been identified because the supposed herbaria specimens to which they had been allied did not include bulbs the organs of which prove to be very different. No doubt PBS members can cite many other examples of the conservation benefits gained from the work of committed so-called amateurs. Iain. -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 179904 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len/ The Professional version does not have this message