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