Dear Dylan, Your response to my comments contained several statements. I'll try to respond to each of them. Because an epiphyte is not growing in soil as we conventionally think of it, that does not mean that it obtains no nutrients from the epiphytic root structure than it has developed. Where else can its nutrients have come from? Its leaves, unlike those of some tillandsias, do not supply the plant with most of its nutrients. Examine the humus (in nature, I mean, not on your bench) in which the orchids we're talking about are growing. I'll grant you that the mineral content is very low but it has all the nutrients needed to feed the plant. It may not form a very thick layer but it's a soil, just as the decayed vegetation of a forest is a soil. Its root structure creates a matrix in which vegetation falling from above, gets lodged, decays and feeds the roots. The next point your raised was that Nhu had argued that the cultivation methods for terrestrial bulbs and and epiphytic orchids were radically different. While the cultivation methods do indeed differ, they are not radically different (no pun intended). Some of my bulbs are grown in a soil mix used also for the orchids, and do well in it. In any case, since when did the requirement for non-radically different methods of cultivation raise its head in PBS? I should have thought this is the one feature that brings together here so many diverse people! Your last point was a non-technical one - Nhu's consideration to exclude orchids because other groups take care of them. I can accept that as policy if that is the policy adopted by PBS. As a policy it would need to be declared somewhere, perhaps in the 'What is a Bulb' section. Regards, Andrew San Diego