Yes, I'm familiar with Wikipedia. But I am personally not having any trouble at all with reading the very excellent scans at the Biodiversity Library, or the Internet Archive; in fact I use them heavily in my work. The quality at Google Books is often suboptimal.
Of course, for me, the problem with the ideal functionality as you have just described it is that someone is pre-selecting material for me to find up there.
There is a subtle but highly important difference between a colleague making a personal contribution in a straightforward manner--say in a SIGNA Notes and Queries sort of setup-- and someone choosing what links to what information I, the reader, may be offered.
I'm primarily interested in exploring information that has not yet been identified as being important.
So, what do you have to tell us about Iris books? Which ones do you reach for, and what do you like and dislike about the standard bibliography?
Cordially,
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: Recommended Ref
There are good reasons for duplicating information from the Biodiversity Library. As indicated I plan to provide links to the library so that people could view the original document. But many documents are extremely hard to read, I can put it into a readable type face. Also in the body of the material, links can be made to appropriate information. For example, if Sir Michael Foster is mentioned, the words Michael Foster could be linked to his page that would provide you with a complete list of his publications and a bio. Each publication name could be linked to that information and so on. There are many other links possible. That is one of the things that makes a wiki so intriguing. People can determine their own pathways to knowledge. This is why Wikipedia is so great.
From: C*@aol.com
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:29:25 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: Recommended Ref
I see I am repeating myself today. So be it. Blame it on the fool with the jackhammer digging up the alley outside my study window. In any case, this is a point which bears repeating.
After all, we have a perfectly respectable webpage for the public, and there does need to be some reason to actually join SIGNA or we won't get the bills paid.
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: ChatOWhitehall <C*@aol.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: Recommended Ref
Why? Why duplicate this resource? What do you accomplish besides making the AIS Wiki immense?
Why not encourage independent research. That is the true gift to the reader. Teach them to fish! Provide a citation and a link to these fabulous resources. I can spend hours at the Biodiversity! Read a major monorgraph on Lilium there last week, in fact.
Besides which, the SIGNA resource might be tailored to SIGNA preferences, as opposed to our undertaking to accomodate the public. I think it might also be limited to SIGNA members for access. After all, we have a perfectly respectable webpage for the public, and there does need to be some reason to actually join SIGNA or we won't get the bills paid.
So, I think it could be different, in a good way, for cause.
I have intentions on putting up all iris information in the Biodiversity Heritage Library that refers to Iris
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: Recommended Ref
Any errors on the wiki are there because people complain, but do not report them. If several SIGNA members wanted to monitor species information on the wiki they could have the wiki setting send them any changes just in the species web.
Presently Dennis pretty much has to put up everything on the SIGNA website. The wiki could allow a team to do the same, accomplishing a lot more. The Wiki can be formatted to whatever format SIGNA likes. But presently all entries have a consistent template. I have repeatedly pointed out that SIGNA could do a great deal to make the species section their own.
The wiki is not freewheeling. It may reflect an alternate opinion to a particular reader. It does allow many to participate and resists anyone including myself as claiming the ultimate authority. Articles are possible and present in a few categories. I have intentions on putting up all iris information in the Biodiversity Heritage Library that refers to Iris. At present I have just linked to relevant pages. But I am only one person. I would appreciate help especially from those who choose to criticize.
Even though the SIGNA site is very small in comparison to even just the species portion of the wiki, it still has contained errors. I have not reviewed it lately but in the past I found lots of problems. There is no one authority on anything that is absolute. More and more I have been adding references to information. Different authorities disagree and the newest always has the advantage of seeing all the past. But historical information is useful and sometimes turns out to be correct.
From: "Sean Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:45:34 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: Recommended Ref
I agree - an open wiki accumulates too many errors that may never be corrected. The AIS wiki is too big to be done otherwise, though.
I've always liked the SIGNA database, but among other things I'd love to see real, honest-to-goodness range maps (difficult for many species, I know), which most references haven't tried (
NANI did). I envision something sort of like this
with the taxonomy, distribution and habitat up front, with perhaps a tabbed layout separating cultivation information and history, cultivars, photos, and the like. These days we could probably get people to contribute photos of a significant number of species in their natural habitats.
Sean Z
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM,
<C*@aol.com> wrote:
<<Rather than a new book why don't you add a new layer and more information to the existing SIGNA database â a bit like Wikipedia for Irises? You could ask experts to add published papers and articles, individual experience and photographs.>>
Actually, that was on my mind, although there is already a general Wiki for irises owned by the AIS.
I think a SIGNA wiki would optimally be a bit different--more disciplined and less freewheeling. It is my firm conviction that the quality of information one sends forth is at least as important as the quantity. Others have said that nonsense cancels nonsense over time, but I observe that it increases geometrically.
<<Are you aware that the following are available to view in pdf format on the website of the UK Group for Beardless Iris?
A Handbook of Garden Irises by William Rickatson Dykes (1924)
Dykes on Irises, part one - an anthology published after his death
http://www.beardlessiris.org/publications.html I don't know if you all have access to copies?>>
Many classic early works are available either through the Internet Archive.which is also a good source of periodical literature, or through the Biodiversity Heritage Library, from the Missouri Botanical Garden. I was not aware that either Dykes had been digitized, in whole or part, although both have been republished in facsimile. I had always assumed Dykes on Irises was still under copyright, although it is true a good deal of the material predates 1923.
As for hard copies, many were published on both sides of the pond. I have not, myself, found it difficult to obtain these. My copy of Dykes on Irises even arrived with the separately published Index included. I found an orginal The Genus Iris for three hundred dollars, albeit it is not one with a leather cover.
But you should speak up with all sorts of helpful hints like this because we all are looking for all the information we can get to fuel our passions and enormous amounts of material is appearing all the time.
<<Love reading your emails by the way! Pictures are great too!!>>
Love hearing from you! and that is a nice website you have there. I'm going to settle in the next rainy day and read all your stuff!
Have you any colleague over there growing Iris persica these days? Not the Kew set. If so, would you ask them to contact me, please? I'm trying to document its modern cultural history, and it does have one.
Cordially,
Anner Whitehead
--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Moyles" <wmoyles@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a recommended ref(s) to the genus ... taxonomy and
> descriptive/distribution/etc .... online or? Thanks ... I think I may
> be missing a good one ! Bill Moyles, Oakland ....
>
