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
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Hortus III

That's hard to say. No one book is sufficient. The 2005 edition of AHS
A-Z is a bit more accurate on names than the 1999 edition. However, they
removed the temperature info for tender plants from the 1999 and
replaced them in the 2005 with those silly heat zone references. Jim
says AHS is way off on zones, but I think mainly for the type of plants
he grows. AHS is pretty much right on the hardiness zones for the plants
you'd care about in Zone 5. What's nice about any edition of A-Z is that
they provide a brief description and cultivation info of every plant.
And a lot of pics.

I use the RHS Index (1995?) for names but it is getting outdated too so
I got their 2006 Plantfinder edition to update it. RHS is frequently off
on our Zones. The Index gives scientific descriptions but no cultivation
info or pictures. But it does cover more plants than AHS. I also have
the RHS Dictionary that gives somewhat extensive coverage of selected
genera, no pics. To get it all with RHS you have to spend a whole lot
more $ than I have.

I have H3 and the Herb Society of America's Encyclopedia ((2000?) as backups for particular items.

H3 can cause problems in the wrong hands. The woman in our Herb Garden
uses it like a bible, but the names are so outdated. Even if the names
are right she often gets them listed wrong because she uses their format
of capitalizing the species name if it's named after a person. That
method was ditched 25 years ago. When people use H3 without updating the
names it can confuse communications. H3 has some good info, but you have
to be cautious what you use from it.

neIN, Zone 5

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Cathy Carpenter <cathy.c@insightbb.com>
> So, if I was to purchase one reference of this type, what would it be?
> Cathy, west central IL, z5b
> On Feb 18, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Christopher P. Lindsey wrote:
> >>  Does anyone on this list actually ever USE their copy of Hortus  
> >> III? I find
> >> it aggravating and am trying to decide if it's worth hauling  
> >> another 1000
> >> miles.
> >
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> >    I think it's interesting from a historical perspective, but  
> > since it
> >    hasn't been changed since 1976 (if I remember correctly) it's sadly
> >    out of date.
> >
> >    The standard used to be Cronquist (published around 1987) and is  
> > now
> >    shifting towards the Royal Horticultural Society and their RHS  
> > Plant
> >    Finder.
> >
> >    So if you don't have anything else, keep it.  If you do, there's no
> >    point unless you want to trace old nomenclature.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement