Botanic and Flora Compared

I have had Botanica (Australasian edition) for several years and this Christmas I was given Flora, so it has been interesting to compare the two.

To me they do seem to be complementary. If I want a good illustration of any but the more uncommon species I am likely to find it in Botanica along with considerable cultural detail. If on the other hand I need to find the less common species or even some unusual genera, Flora has more information and always gives the Family beside each genus entry (an irritating lack in Botanica). While it does liat many more species it does seem though to have considerably fewer illustrated and is very sparing with cultural information. As a professional botanist who is also a gardener, I find the books admirably complementary, turning to Flora for botanical information and to Botanica to find how and where to grow the plants (and in may cases exactly what they look like too).

On the whole though, for people who are mainly plain gardeners and not either botanists or speciaist growers of unusual species I would think Botanica is still the better and more useful book.

The only other comparison I must make is in the convenence of handling. Botanica as far as I know is sold only as one volume and this makes it quite uncomfortable to handle because of its bulk and weight. It also seems to be poorly bound to cope with this bulk and though mine has received most careful handling the back is half off it.

Flora can likewise be had as one book, but is also offered in two volumes and that is how mine is bound. Though these are still big books I think they have a good deal more hope of surviving intact than my Botanica.

Moira
--
Tony & Moira Ryan,
Wainuiomata, North Island, NZ.     Pictures of our garden at:-
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cherie1/Garden/TonyandMoira/index.htm

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