Peter,
Again, my comments follow yours. > This is rapidly degenerating into pointless a "I said, you said" > situation, so unless you come up with a total corker, this is likely > to be my last word on the matter. No, I always provided what you said with my replies, so there was never any question about what you said! > I maintain that Schechter's "Die Orchideen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea" is > not a flora. You kindly provided the definition of a flora, vis "A > systematic treatise on the plants of a given area." and then correctly > pointed out that Schlechter's book does not qualify since it is not > confined to New Guinea. Since the work does not match the definition, > I fail to understand why you insist on calling it a "Flora". > Schechter's work goes well beyond the limited scope of a flora, and > labelling it as such does both him and his work an injustice. If you > want a nice tidy librarian's tag for the work, call it a "Treatise", > just like Schlechter did. It does confine itself to the Orchids of German New Guinea with the exception of the genus Dendrobium and that in itself does not disqualify it as a flora. I never said what you claim "correctly pointed out"(pure fabrication). As you pointed out Gunnar Seidenfaden often included other species in his work, yet he himself called his work a flora. So he can use the word 'flora' for his work, but I can't use it for a similar type work by Schlechter, foggy thinking on your part. By the way the word 'treatise' (that you want to use) is in the definition of flora. More foggy thinking on your part, I think. Floras are nothing to be ashamed of, so why would this do his work and injustice? > A "Complete Revision" ? Sorry. For a revision to qualify as "complete" > the author has to critically examine every known species (or at the > minimum, every species that is both known and available) in the group, > but publish his findings in less depth than would be found in a > monograph. A monograph involves a critical examination of every > available specimen of every known species in the group, and publishing > a detailed description (usually with full keys and diagrams) for every > known species in the group. Schlechter did neither of these, so what > he provided in "Die Orchideen" was a revision of Dendrobium, not a > "complete revision". If you have a different understanding of > "complete", please share it. Schlechter addressed and revised every known group of Dendrobiums. That seems quite complete, but does not qualify to be called a monograph because he did not list every species. You did not answer my question as to what group he did not address, so that would seem to conclude the issue because there is no group. You are fishtailing again. > You typecast me as "a person that uses inaccuracies to try to prove my > points", so rather than address every point you made, I have confined > my response to the inaccuracies that you used to try to prove your > points. I'm calling off the dogs ? No. I'm just getting bored with the > pedantic direction this arguement has taken, which really boils down > to being able to comprehend the meaning of simple words that are > well-defined in most English dictionaries. Schlechter's book is goes > beyond the scope of a Flora, and his revision of Dendrobium was not > complete. Yes, I think that describes you quite well. When cornered once again, you attack, trying to cloud the issues. Your arguments had so many holes in them it was very laughable and we have had great fun going over them. Nevertheless, I am glad it is over and you are shown to be what you are. icones _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
