Leo writes, "Through time committed individuals are the ones who preserve culture, not institutions. Institutions frequently destroy culture." I think this statement is true but it should be emended to include committed individuals within institutions. Aside from topics overlapping in this thread (databases shared online vs. programs for personal use), there are at least two elements that have not been addressed adequately: longevity and usefulness. If the goal is to conserve living plants in cultivation, why do such programs need to last "forever"? They could be useful to a wide range of people even for a few years before transforming or giving way to something else. The relations between plants and humans is transient and very fluid. Any scheme to mirror the database sharing of institutions in the private sector should have clear objectives, benefits and limitations for the participants. As far as actually using such a resource, no one has yet said how it would be expected to work. It seems to be an assumption here that it is "just a good idea so let's do it". Would all PBS members be able to logon and see what is in other collections and then make requests? What are the liabilities for any participating party? The "legal ownership" of plants (and animals) is an issue developing apace that threatens to overshadow collections preservation in many institutions. Will that burden spread to all collections and individuals? How would that impact the sharing of information about collections? As Leo indicates, institutions are not motivated to do anything so much as preserve and grow themselves. Giving over valuable information, and materials by implication, to a public forum should be carefully considered. Dylan Hannon > >