🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20041004085825.03855.00004009@mb-m19.aol.com>, 
iriscohen@aol.com (Iris Cohen) wrote:
><< Im a possible botany major, and was wondering if anyone knew of good
>websites out there, that can provide info/pictures of trees and shrubs.
>
>Are you for real or a troll? We have a curmudgeon in this group who is going to
>blast you for that question.

Hey, Iris!  I hope you're not referring to Celluloid!  (Actually, I 
saw Toy Boy's response earlier, and he gave an interesting link that 
I wasn't aware of, to an enormous compendium of websites -- albeit 
still rather "unedited".  But thanks anyway, mate. :-)

>If you are serious and a college student, you need to learn how to use your
>seach engine. I suggest you start by searching on the name of a specific tree,

True, to a point.  But the poor bugger may not yet know about Latin 
binomials.  [An aside -- I heard the other day that some bloke is 
proposing some new taxonomic system that isn't quite so much at the 
whim of professionals when it comes to name changes.  But the mate 
who mentioned it couldn't recall the reference. :-(  ]

Frankly, I see nothing at all wrong with approaching a group of 
self-declared "experts" in a newsgroup called sci.bio.botany and 
asking for opinions about "good websites" as the OP wanted.  What's 
wrong with that?  Why should *everyone* wade through all the crap out 
there when there are people who do that sort of thing for a living and 
can point you in the right direction?

If I'm crook, I don't go to the Internet, or even the local library, 
looking for solutions at random.  I go to the local quack for advice 
and treatment by one who knows. (At least that's the theory. :)

>say Cornus florida. You will find any number of sites with pictures and
>information. Bookmark the best ones and use them to find information on other
>trees. Eventually you will find the most useful sites. Some I would suggest are
>USDA, the National Forest Service, the US National Arboretum, and the
>University of Connecticut. The RHS is also a valuable resource.

Typical yank.  What about the rest of the world?  Oh, I see you did 
mention the Royal Horticultural Society.  Must be that "special 
relationship" thing.  ;-)

ObBotSites:
Oz stuff:  http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/herbarium/
More Oz stuff: http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/
Water weeds: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mcplnt1c.html (yankee :-)
Botanical Latin: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pbostock/
Kew: http://www.kew.org.uk/data/vascplnt.html
Poisonous plants: http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/index.html
Grasses:  http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/grass/www/ident.htm
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St Louis): 
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.
de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0001ICSLContents.htm
[The above URL obviously needs to be on one line.]
Indigenous knowledge: 
http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/scihort/eblinks/ipr.html
Missouri Bot. Garden: http://www.mobot.org/
[Regarded as somewhat better than Kew in some respects now. :-( ]
Plants USA: http://plants.usda.gov/
Phytochemistry and Ethnobotany: http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

Bugger it!  That's enough.  I'm getting carried away!
(And astute observers will note an anglophile bias here; not unlike 
Iris's failing. Sorry world, but most Aussies are unilingual.  Sad.)

Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID