|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28237 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 04 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
We could have a unified approach, but I'm not convinced there's a need. I've been putting a common name in the title, followed by the scientific name Genus species, and then putting an also known as to cover other commonnames (which are also added to the glossary, with 'see other common name'). I'd have thought that as long as we make sure of entering the scientific name somewhere on or near the first line we're fine.
Regarding putting family or suchlike in, that's often a lot less useful for a forager than you might imagine. Depends very much on the plant. It's not very useful to know that a blackberry is rosaceae, but it helps to know that the fruit is composed of individual small berries. It doesn't help in describing a plum to say that it's also rosaceae, but it -is- useful to refer to, say, an alexander as an umbellifer.
Last edited by cab on Wed Dec 15, 04 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28237 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
anneka
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 158
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
anneka
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 158
|
|
|
|
|
anneka
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 158
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45674 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
|