> Now, if anyone is interested in donating about 50 hours of their > time to this project, please contact >me. It is not a small undertaking every time we have to change the >structure of the wiki. I think this is an underestimate about the time needed to move "marginal" genera to a place of their own. For one thing I don't know how you'd come to agreement about what is a marginal genera. Someone didn't want any of the genera in the Araceae family on the wiki. We have 20 genera in that family on the wiki, many often included in generic books about bulbs. I expect there would be people in this group who would not consider them marginal. Other suggestions have the same problems. I added some of the Australian genera that people are unhappy with after being given a book, "Tuberous, Cormous, and Bulbous Plants: Biology of an Adaptive Strategy in Western Australia" by Will Ashburner, a frequent contributor on one of the old IBS lists. Western Australia has a Mediterranean climate and because it is bounded by ocean and desert some plants have adapted in unusual ways to deal with the long period without rain. I found that fascinating and I guess because I was enthralled with a lot of the Australian flora I wanted to share that information. Xanthorrhoea has species with root tubers described in that book for instance and I added some of the ones we saw in areas with long periods of time without rainfall. Does it belong on the wiki? Perhaps not, although a case could be made. Then there was the suggestion that some species in the Iris family don't belong. To change that you would have to study each page in that family (16) and deciding what to move and figure out how to explain what was in each location. And there would be people sorry to see some of those species moved. There might not be enough information on the wiki page to be able to figure out which species needed to move. We have removed species in the past that were annuals in genera with species that clearly belonged. But this requires the knowledge to know what those species are, or the time to research it. And what about the people who had given of their time to create those pages or add images that others wish were not there? When we removed questionable genera in the past, it made the people who added them very unhappy. Volunteers are much more likely to continue to volunteer if what they do is appreciated. Most people who search the Internet are looking for specific information. The average time spent looking at the wiki is very short. We know from David Pilling's study of the statistics that the majority of people don't make it beyond one page. If we have provided information that they find useful, they will be happy. You can never make everyone happy. I expect that most people would never even look at the Xanthorrhoea wiki page unless they were interested in it. The people who were happy to have the information would probably outweigh those few who spent a lot of time examining the genera on the Photographs page and being unhappy that it was included. The introduction to it explains the features that make it marginal. It doesn't make sense to ask the few people who are doing the work to spend their time taking off or relocating information that someone might find helpful, especially when it means that other potentially more important tasks wouldn't be done. Over the years this has come up over and over again. I expect this won't be the last time as those people who are unhappy with what has been included continue to be unhappy and voice their continuing concerns. Hopefully their dissatisfaction won't discourage those few people who continue to maintain and add information to the wiki. Mary Sue