Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Marshall <andrewm@eskimo.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg4030$foo@default> Subject: more from me :-)
Hello again folks,
Please bear with me on this.
> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:02:59 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Paul Burkhardt <burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>
> I don't know if this invalidates Andrew's experiment. We all have
> different plants and different clones of different ages. If Superthrive is
> supposed to work on *all* plants as you so believe and suggest, then why
> does it matter to have the same clones in the experiment? A cross section
> of plants of different ages and types would be a valid scientific
> experiment as Andrew had conducted. If Superthrive is supposed to work,
> then it would have been more readily noticed in a cross section than in a
> group of same age clones because it is possible that Superthrive is
> innocuous to certain plants.
>
> Paul Burkhardt
>
Just to clarify, in case needed. Each experiment that I did was
on a like aged group of seedlings/plants. Taken together though the
experiments were done on plants ranging from a few weeks old to mature,
blooming sized. For instance the Drosera capensis experiments were done
for 4 months, from a few weeks after germination until they all bloomed,
or near enough in the laggards. I couldn't do this with the Sarracenia as
I wasn't able to keep 150 plants, of the same sort from seedling to mature
in the living room of the place I was in at the time.
I will now shut up and let some one else get a posting in.
regards
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:12 PST