> Here is the abbreviated, tentative, chapter outline I promised.
>
> Chapter 1. Intro:
> Chapter 2. Lists:
> Chapter 3. Descriptions:
> Chapter 4. Keys:
> Chapter 5. Natural history/ecology:
> Chapter 6. Distribution:
> Chapter 7. Culture/Propagation:
> Chapter 8. Bibliographies:
> Chapter 9: Illustrations:
I am excited about your book proposal, and hope to see it eventually in
print.
What I want to do in this note is to explain why I think the monograph /
database project is the most appropriate way to initially collect the
information for such a book.
Because the CP WEB page is on the internet, it allows collaboration
across many countries, and facilitates contributions from experts
world-wide. The monograph project is well underway by the German Plant
Society, which have agreed to allow their work to be translated to
english and integrated into the CP database. Although there is no work
currently underway outside of Germany, I hope that CP enthusiasts in
the US and other countries will soon start to contribute.
Secondly, the state of the art in taxonomy and horticulture is a moving
target. The WEB page is a "living" entity that can be kept constantly
up-to-date with new developments. A book starts going stale the moment
it is printed, so is most useful for describing a stable body of knowledge.
(But I suppose you can always have 1st, 2nd, 3rd editions! :-)).
The long-term plan (maybe 1-2 years out from now) is to press a CD-ROM
of the WEB page, making it cheaply available for use on Macintosh and
MSDOS computers. I expect that such a disc could be sold for ~$20 US,
and could be distributed to enthusiasts, libraries, high schools, etc.
This disk could contain about 1.5 Gigabytes of information, including
3000 color pictures - ( a very big book indeed!).
Except for the indexing feature, most of this data will not be
"heavy-duty" hypertext, allowing the database to be published in paper
form, with a conventional table of contents and index.
One critique I have of your chapter proposal is that it is organized by
topic rather than species. I am constantly annoyed by Slack's books that
are split into two sections: descriptions, and cultivation information.
To find information on one specific species, I'm sent on a treasure hunt
across multiple chapters. Your proposal would further split things up
into even more divisions. Just think - if you want to be *complete*,
you will need to list all 800+ species at least 9 times - once for each
chapter. Just this redundancy could make such a book *very* thick, and
hard to use.
The monograph approach sounds scholarly and inaccessible, but it really
is just a way of saying that all the information about each species is
in *one* place (mono=one, graph=writing). All we are trying to do is
get volunteers to work on one species at a time, conscientiously research
the plant (using Jan's framework as a guideline), and then write it up
in *one* place (again using the framework as an outline).
These 800+ write-ups (including summary overviews for Genus and Families) will
then be accessible as a font of information from which numerous derivative
books can be written.
There is also room in the database project for Keys, Habitat descriptions,
etc. We already have keys for South African, and North American Drosera,
and a paper on the ecology of Darlingtonia. Soon we will have copies of
Jans's comprehensive Drosera key. Although not yet on the WEB page, the
CP archive maintains growlists for members of the CP mailing list, and also
contains current pricelists for most major CP suppliers. This information
will eventually be accessible through the WEB page, and will be constantly
updated.
Finally, the nomenclature for Nepenthes and Sarracenia hybrids is a terrible
wreck. We need is a central clearing house for maintaining records and
names for cultivars, hybrids and clones. The CPN can serve the role of
publishing new names, but the database is the ideal clearing house for
maintaining the names in a public way.
Please don't take these comments as an "attack" - I'm simply giving you my
"spin" on things so that we can work towards the most productive synthesis
of our ideas and skills.
I'm looking forward to hearing more of your views, and I'm hoping we can
find a way to work towards a common goal!
Best regards,
-- Rick Walker