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/ >