Re: Neil Carroll's last IAS Newsletter
- Subject: Re: Neil Carroll's last IAS Newsletter
- From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:02:55 -0500 (CDT)
Hear, hear..... I second Peter's point of view here. We need to be realistic
about a few things. We have a society of which an overwhelming number of
members are plant lovers and a very small minority is scientifically
involved in aroids. And of the latter group even a smaller group on a
day-to-day basis. Do not believe for a minute that this small group can
maintain a scientific journal forever. In comparison, with such a high
number of potential contributors to the "less scientific" newsletter, the
newsletter cannot be called a succes in terms of numbers of pages. No
people, the problem is that a great majority of the IAS members just won't
write for such a Newsletter either.
Having said that, looking at what is discussed on aroid-l and arisaema-l,
there IS plenty of stuff to fill hundreds of pages on cultivation stuff,
expeditions and whatnot.
I say we use Aroideana BOTH for scientific stuff and substantial other
material and keep the newsletter for short communications, announcements and
related topics. Aroideana is a great public-relation medium for the IAS too,
which is something a newsletter never is intended to be. Aroideana should be
bought by libraries, a newsletter never will be because newsletters have a
I strongly suggest that the IAS maintains its strategy to invest well in
Aroideana and that all members of IAS think carefully about what they want
in Aroideana beside science. And I mean things of substance, no small talk.
Maybe an on-line enquiry can be organised by the board of IAS about
Aroideana and have us members speak up!
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Boyce <email@example.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: dinsdag 15 mei 2001 17:17
Subject: Re: Neil Carroll's last IAS Newsletter
> Your email rather gives the impression that you think Aroideana is simply
> vox pop. for the few 'scientists' who happen to belong to the IAS and that
> the Newsletter is the for the real hard-core aroid folks who 'love their
> plants' but whose writings and views are only worth putting into an
> ephemeral publication. I think that does these folks a grave injustice.
> The fact of the matter is that if all Aroideana is viewed as is a
> journal that, like so many others, is flicked through once and then
> consigned to a shelf then there is something seriously wrong with the
> Journal. Check out 'Palms' (aka Principes), no less scientific and erudite
> than Aroideana but with a good selection of 'amateur'; stuff, and ask
> yourself if that's not where Aroideana should be aiming.