Locality data
Hannon (Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:24:17 PDT)

OK, point taken! I'll just add one related story of interest regarding
Muilla clevelandii, which is quite similar at a glance to Bloomeria crocea.
When I finally was able to look at both species side by side I found 2-3
excellent floral characters to separate them. They were not the characters
traditionally used in the floras to separate them but they were arguably
better.

On 2 November 2012 13:57, Tony Avent <Tony@plantdelights.com> wrote:

Dylan:

I won't start a diatribe on plant keys, but last week, we were keying out
a calylophus from Texas. Using three different floras from Texas, we were
sent to three different species. All three keys were completely
contradictory on a genus as small as calylophus. Surely, we can turn out
better taxonomists than that!

Tony Avent
Plant Delights Nursery @
Juniper Level Botanic Garden
9241 Sauls Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 USA
Minimum Winter Temps 0-5 F
Maximum Summer Temps 95-105F
USDA Hardiness Zone 7b
email tony@plantdelights.com
website http://www.plantdelights.com/
phone 919 772-4794
fax 919 772-4752
"I consider every plant hardy until I have killed it myself...at least
three times" - Avent

-----Original Message-----
From: pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org]
On Behalf Of Hannon
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 4:50 PM
To: Pacific Bulb Society
Subject: Re: [pbs] Locality data

Tony,

100% agreed on the way things are trending in academia. What I lament most
in modern botany is that a large proportion of botanists is dismissive of
the importance of producing useful products: keys that work, floras,
revisions, monographs, information (books) available outside the arcane
journals. The "internet age" has done very little to break the barriers
between amateurs and the more scientific information they seek.

The emphasis (read: funding) today is almost exclusively on theoretical
modeling (cladograms), molecular level studies, etc. These scientists seem
absorbed primarily in process and method rather than output, which they may
see as static or instantly archaic. So understanding is increased in some
areas but the audience that benefits by that understanding shrinks because
of the evermore technical nature of the output and its venue.

I would liken your Phlox flunkie to those who say that the organism is
irrelevant-- its molecular history and variation are what matter, whether
it be fish or fowl. "Let's sequence it before we form our views". Does that
not show a similar ignorance and contempt for living things?

Dylan
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/