> The editors of CPN (congratulations on the brilliant job you are doing)
> now have a very difficult decision. Are they aiming for the academic
> market, in which case they have to be seen as squeaky clean, but
> hopefully will attract more articles in the vein of Dr Schlaur's
> magnificent Drosera key. Or are they aiming for the hobbyist,
> in which case one of their roles should be to campaign against obvious
> injustices in the CP world ...
I'm glad Nigel wrote this, and it should stimulate some interesting
discussions. (I wholeheartedly agree with his praise of the CPN
editors!).
Let me start by saying that I am a scientist/researcher, and I appreciate
the need (and the necessary hard work) for research along the lines
which produced Jan Schlauer's Drosera key, Phil Sheridan's dissertation
research on the biochemistry of pigments in Sarraceniae, etc.
Let me also say that I grow CP (and a few other plants) because I think
they're beautiful, and not for any other reason. In fact I've sustained
a bit of inconvenience because of this hobby--growing Nepenthes without
the convenience of a greenhouse is a pain in the posterior.
Should the CPN move toward the academic "market" (is there a "market"
in academe?)? Or should it be geared toward the hobbyist only? I
think that a balance must be struck between the two extremes.
>From a practical standpoint, I think that subscriptions to CPN
might drop if it contained _only_ high level research articles (and
also if it stopped publishing beautiful color pictures :-) ).
Unfortunately the ICPS is not funded by any government grants and
so it cannot afford to go the "purist" route. This assumes, of
course, that hobbyists make up the bulk of subscriptions--I think
this assumption is reasonable. Bottom line: hobbyists supply (through
their subscriptions) the majority share of the ICPS income.
On the other hand, CPN would be doing a disservice to hobbyists
as well as researchers if research articles were not published.
There MUST be a medium for research to be distributed to the
masses (that's you and me, folks).
(I might ask researchers if CP articles are published in some
of the more recognized peer-reviewed botanical journals.)
Travel articles are entertaining and sometimes useful--I know of at
least one person who organized a trip to Kinabalu Park using my
article as a guide. How-to articles on cultivation are also
useful, but sometimes the techniques cited are inexact, not thoroughly
researched, or not feasible for some localities. CPN _should_
continue to publish high quality research articles.
Referring once again to what Nigel wrote, I don't think that
articles which condemn "obvious injustices in the CP world" serve
hobbyists only. Such injustices affect all of us, hobbyists and
CP researchers alike. In fact, we could use some good research
articles on CP habitats and their disappearance/destruction.
I'm sure the editors of CPN will handle the most recent controversey
(over the article about the red VFT and associated legalities) in a
proper manner. If errors were made, then the editors will have the
chance to publish a correction. If apologies are due, they will be
published. If another article, with a different viewpoint, is submitted
then it will probably be published.
Regards to all,
Perry Malouf