Every study starts with an observation. I would encourage you to use Peter's advice and check other paph leaves. Although I am not as harsh a critic as Dr. Charles Bracker, he is right in the sense that one should not dismiss a published scientific paper as "crap" based on a single leaf sample and observation.
On the other side of the coin, I feel anyone is capable of making "scientific observation" and providing valuable information. For this reason, you should continue your quest to discover the truth about paphs and stomata. Perhaps a better way of stating your observations in the future would be, "I examined a leaf sample under the microscope. Contrary to previous publications, the stomata were closed. Further investigation should be implemented to verify my findings." Just my two cents. Good luck, happy growing! Will > This sounds great and all, but once again it isn't a study. Now, > if there is some demand for this data, I'll take up a collection > for materials, and we'll do it. However, I don't think this is > info is going to be nearly as valuable as the ammoniacal > fertilizer query. Maybe we can do both, we'll see. > > Steve T _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
