For those on this list who are unfamiliar with the American or British schemes to track "national collections", the idea is based on specific genera of plants or closely allied groups, or even a part of a particular genus. They are not, as far as I know, focused on whole collections. Even as botanical gardens are becoming more organized in databasing and mapping their holdings, it is a safe bet that most of the diversity of cultivated plants remains in private hands. This speaks to motivations as well as resources. The sometimes awkward interface of plant exchange between public gardens and collectors will not be improved by increased centralization of information about collections in either sphere. The current informal and often personal basis of exchange of plants and information between all types of participants serves well enough over time and functions as a sort of natural selection process. If all collections everywhere were represented by accessible databases, what benefit would arise that we do not enjoy now? It might be a good idea for societies like PBS to keep track of specialized collections held by members. This poses many obstacles, not least of which is the burden on the PBS administrators. Some measure of value or "worthiness" would have to be established-- delicate territory! With or without such a program, it might be useful to have an article in *Bulbs *that outlines the features of a more valuable assemblage of plants and how such plants serve the interests of various growers. *Improving *collections is more worthwhile than documenting them in a database. Dylan Hannon