P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
I am afraid I disagree here. Dried plants look different from live ones.
There appears to be no shortage of characters that are easily visible on
live plants but are hard to make out on dried plants. Also a great deal
of the fun goes out of it if only dried plants are handled.

Tom Schweich schreef
You're right that dried plants look different than live ones. Just
speaking for myself, I feel that I have learned more by going through
the process of examining in the field, photographing, collecting,
drawing, drying, describing, and vouchering, than if I just sat in the
meadow with a flora and examined plants through a hand lens. Also I
think remembering how a plant looked when collected, and how it looks
dried and mounted on a voucher, helps me visualize what a old, vouchered
plant may have looked like when collected. This has particularly
helpful in one of my current projects wherein I am reviewing a
collection of plants made in 1940 in one canyon of an area now in Mojave
National Preserve.

--
Tom Schweich
http://www.schweich.com Day: 415-545-3644

+ + +
There is not much disagreement here. For serious monographic work dried
plants are essential. Obviously the process of familiarizing oneself with
plants is helped by any directed activity involving these plants. But the
focus should be on looking at (smelling, etc) the plants themselves,
preferably through the seasons and at as many forms as possible.

Starting a herbarium is only one way to do this, and certainly not the one I
recommend for the 'beginner'. Actually something similar goes for
photography. Photography can be an invaluable tool, but it requires a
certain mindset and training. A photoalbum full of home-made pictures of
plants from the 'wrong perspective' is a sad thing.

A nice full color picture book is a very happy way to start, although there
are vast differences in quality when it comes to books.
PvR