Sara Watson wrote:
> Hi, Richard.
> I'm new to the group and just read your email and agree that perhaps
> "treeness" is not the best basis for attributes; however, you have a
> wide array of users, from those who know the correct botanical
> terminology to some sloppy endusers, like myself, who still rely on
> some very basic and general characteristics as a means of
> researching--so I think for me, searching for "tree" in addition to
> other characteristics like deciduous or environ, is as valuable as say
> Fabaceae etc. And if the database is to be looked at as a means of
> educating the public, it seems important to include the lowest common
> denominator in addition to very specific informatin for the
> Is the database so limited that it wouldn't provide for mutiple
> attributes? I'll have to check it out.
> Sara W. Burgess
Good to hear from you. Yes I quite agree that we should
keep "tree" in the the database, for all the reasons you discussed.
The point of the post was really a bunch of random thoughs about what
the concept of tree means and some musings over quite how patchy the
occurences of trees are in plant family tree, a fact that I find rather
No need to worry!
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
same as http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/pfaf/
Post: 1 Lerryn View, Lerryn, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, PL22 0QJ
Tel: 01208 872 963 / 0845 458 4719
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf