🚀 go-pugleaf

Right back at ya, Kangaroo boy.

Despite your best efforts to the contrary, you can still actually learn a
thing or two!!!

How about looking up a Parakeelya for me?


"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2sd7koF1jpi5iU1@uni-berlin.de...
> 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
>