hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Discussion on Origin of Sports & the use of "Big words"

First, RE the Discussion of Origin of Sports

Bill Meyer wrote:
Another point that should be made is that sieboldiana 'Elegans' should be
considered a group of plants, not a single cultivar, as many different
cultivars have been sold under this name.
This reminds me of the question regarding "identical, similar and unique".
There is a continuum.  The Hosta Color Wheel committee has helped us to ferret
out the various sports and to align them along a continuum that allows
placement relative to their parent gene pool.  That continuum is now at least
two dimensional.  Soon, it may be three or four dimensions--maybe five or six.
The Hosta Wheel does this better than any concept to date.  I believe this
system has been used to help line up the sieboldiana 'Elegans' group so Bill is
right, this work has been done (though not memorized).  Is this a "group", is
this a "grex", or is this a "clan of sports".  I'm asking... I don't really
know which is the appropriate term.  Hopefully some taxonomists can help get me
straight on this.

Second, RE: the use of "Big Words"
There was a posting recently about the use of what I would call the use of the
MOST ACCURATE terminology.  Now that I've completed my nasty IP upgrades and am
back on line, I've taken some time to read probably 80% of the postings
regarding Hosta sports.  I noticed a couple of posts asking people to "dumb
down" the language so that everyone could understand it.  Perhaps this is a
crass way to put it, but I find this request perhaps a bit selfish.  I did not
make notes of who asked, as it doesn't really matter as this is not meant to be
taken personally.  I am generalizing here.  If you were speaking about your
field of expertise would you want to be asked to slow down your rate of
speaking because the listener wants you to define all of your industry specific
terminology?  Heavens no.

It is the responsibility of the student to work hard at learning, as well as
understanding the glossary of terms.  It is not the responsibility of the
"professor" to explain every little thing to those who wish to learn.
Otherwise, that learned person is being "held back" in their field of study
because of the sheer magnitude of work involved in making sure that every
publication is written to support a knowledge level at the least common
demoninator.  Most everyone has some area where they are gifted.  Asking
questions is the appropriate way to gain understanding, not scolding the
professor because s/he uses words that are hard to understand.

So please don't slow down the rate of exchange of valuable scientific
communications so that we all can understand it.  Let fledgings like me help
point those with questions to resources like these
to explain terminology while those with much greater understanding forage on
ahead toward the goal of understanding much more complicated things.  (I'm
currently hoping to understand promoters a bit better and this leaves my dingy
into some pretty rough seas).   We can do this by simply asking questions.  NO
question should be seen as a dumb question but some who are afraid to ask the
questions want the speaker to recite the glossary every time they speak.  And
then Jim feels a need to apologize.  Perish the thought.

I would ask that people like Jim Hawes, Joe Halinar, or Ben Zonneveld (and
others too numerous to mention) not be constrained just because we don't
understand everything they say.  We need them to dig deeper, to get further
mired in the quagmire of attempts to explain the heretofore unexplainable and
to but occassionally sit back with a glass of fresh lemonade to simply enjoy
the garden... <g>

We can't have it both ways...we need to move the discussion on to protein
sequencing and bp sequencing, not back to what is a chimera, even if no one
really understands what one is.  By going beyond, we sometimes resolve the very
question that is at the heart of the matter.

Andrew Lietzow
(I survived something even tougher than the Australian outback...I survived an
ISP upgrade!)

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index