I think taking the broad minded approach to the question of the meaning of the word "bulb" in the name of the Pacific Bulb Society makes good sense. People with a background in formal botany might quibble, but the simple truth is that botany does not own the word "bulb", and the majority uses it in the very broad sense. Does there exist a class of people so refined that they on the one hand are aware of the formal definition of "bulb", but on the other hand are not aware that in general usage it might have a different meaning? I don't think so. Yet there are plenty of people who are clueless about the formal distinction between a bulb and a corm, and there are plenty of people whose enjoyment of gardening will not be improved a bit when they come to understand the distinctions being made. In contrast to that, I think it's very important that the content of the wiki be accurate; that's where it's important to either observe best current practice of formal botany or to call attention to reasonable disagreements among responsible parties. I'm all for getting the facts (or what pass as facts in this area) out there, but there is such a thing as taking ourselves too seriously, isn't there? Jim McKenney