The misleading information we saw on that "bad" site for Lycoris squamigera reminds me of a story. Many years ago, when I was nurturing a keen interest in several local amphibian populations, I visited a local nature preserve. I was curious to learn what they had observed on their site. At the time of my visit, none of the naturalists was on hand, but when I explained the purpose of my visit, one of the volunteer helpers had an idea. It turned out that a summer intern had prepared a survey of the local amphibians recently. I was handed a notebook, and my eyes nearly popped as I turned the pages. After turning a few pages, I was getting the impression that that site must have one of the best preserved and richest amphibian faunas in the state. I quickly jumped to the pages for the species of most interest to me: they were listed as present. And then it dawned on me: the intern has simply picked up a few field guides and, on the basis of the very general distribution maps, listed every species whose "field guide range" included the site of the preserve. In fact, the very ordinary fauna of the preserve included only the usual suspects. Someone mentioned the USDA maps. I got a jolt from those, too, the first time I saw them. There is a Clematis which grows in Virginia which is very interesting to me. I checked one of those sites which gives distribution information. I was astonished to discover that the plant (at least according to the web site) grew across the river, not far from home. Those maps were apparently based on state records. How much sense does it make for a site to be structured in such a way that to find the answer to a question one must first know that answer? Jim McKenney jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7 My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/Bulletins/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/