Ecolog:
"Wildflower" guides are usually oriented to casual users, and that's fine.
What I would like to see are small, generalized distribution maps that
extend beyond the geographic boundaries of the guide with reasonable
accuracy (not just colored-in states from whence they have been reported,
but real locations, however simplified) plus a world map indicating their
original place(s) of origin and post-contact locations (dots/stipples would
be ok, to keep the map small) followed by a few words or symbols indicating
habitat type. Emphasis should be placed on reliably diagnostic features,
preferably visible with the naked eye or low-powered magnifier. References
could be made to keys and references for those wanting more detail, in PLAIN
LANGUAGE, with technical terms used only when simpler terms would actually
cause confusion. A brief introductory essay that explains all necessary
limitations can warn users in advance without weighting them down either
intellectually or physically.
Actually, I would rather see a series of guidebooks oriented to bioregions,
not political boundaries, and/or a "master" volume that could be as simple
as an index. This complex of guides could be expanded into ecological realms
beyond habitat categories (desert, riparian, forest), discussing interesting
stuff like disjunct distributions, sky islands, and convergent evolution,
with further guides leading to further guides ("It's turtles all the way
down," right?), branching off into the kinds of animals, fungi, etc. with
which they are associated.
All of this should be freely available on-line; the publisher's copyright
should be limited to the physical books and CD/DVD's in which they have
incurred actual costs. I think having such information freely available
on-line would INCREASE, not decrease, book sales. Corporate bean-counters
are missing the point and are stuck in the last century and beyond. If they
don't get ahead of us (yes, paying us to create), we'll get ahead of them,
and leave them in the dust. Don't forget that the information they use was
originally done by people who didn't get a cent from the publishers. Just
because the botanists, entomologists, etc. didn't copyright their work
doesn't mean that it's right to assemble the information and sell it back to
them, threatening to sue them for using information they didn't produce.
WT
PS: Taxonomists should be on the team, but probably shouldn't write such
guides.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hernandez" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wildflower Guides to Southeastern U.S.
I was asked by at least two people to summarize the replies to my query
about Southeastern wildflower guides. Here is what I got, followed by some
more of my own comments:
Three respondants recommended Newcomb's Wildflower Guide for the mountains
and piedmont. The problem there is, Newcomb's area map is nearly identical
to that in Peterson's Northeastern/North-Central guide, so unless Newcomb's
is more comprehensive than Peterson, which I already own, it is not
worthwhile for me to purchase Newcomb's.
I also received recommendations for Wofford's Key to the Blue Ridge
Mountains; for the Lower Coastal Plain, Clewell's Guide to the Vascular
Plants of the Florida Panhandle; Duncan and Duncan for the entire Eastern
region (presumably both North and South -- the preview on Amazon did not let
me see an area map, if any); Clair Brown's guide for Louisiana and adjacent
states; and the Audubon Society's guide to the Eastern region. Also,
Sorrie's about-to-be-released guide for the Carolina Sandhills (June 1). One
respondant said that since there is no good guide to the entire region, he
cobbles together a collection of guidebooks, scientific articles, and
technical keys.
Here are my thoughts: it is too bad that Peterson-style line drawings seem
to be out of vogue. They can clarify what photographs obscure. For example:
say we are at a site where a roadside abuts a riparian zone, in South
Carolina. There are numerous yellow Senecio blooming. Is it the ruderal
Senecio smalii, or the riparian Senecio glabella? Look at a guide with two
separate photos, and it may be difficult to tell -- especially if the guide
in question is arranged by habitat, with ruderals in a separate section from
riparian species. But if there was a Peterson-style guide, arranged visually
and with line drawings, we could simply turn to the page of clustered yellow
rayed composites. All Senecio species of that type would be lined up there
as line drawings, with handy diagnostic arrows pointing to the key
details -- in this case, the width and lobing of the leaves -- to
distinguish S. smallii from S. glabella; there would then be a note on
habitat at the end of each description, to add a further important detail.
Peterson's system, in my opinion, has never been improved upon.
One responadant noted that "being a guide," the recommended volume did not
have the best species coverage. Well, it is true that no guidebook has the
coverage of the technical floras; but Peterson's come close, given his
admittedly arbitrary definition of a "wildflower": herbaceous angiosperms,
excluding Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and Juncaceae. To take the example I know
best: before coming to the Southeast, I lived for over twelve years in the
Pacific Northwest. The Peterson wildflower guide to that region is Niehaus
and Ripper, "Pacific States Wildflowers." In twelve years, 98% of the
wildflowers (by Peterson's definition) I encountered were in Niehaus and
Ripper; only rarely did I need to consult the flora by Hitchcock and
Cronquist. Any guidebook less comprehensive than that is, in my opinion,
substandard.
Given that Peterson's wildflower guides cover every part of the contiguous
48 states except the Southeast, I wonder if it is worthwhile contacting the
folks at Houghton-Mifflin about this?
Jason Hernandez
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3620 - Release Date: 05/06/11
