In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Using the botanical names (in this case Alnus) is probably more reliable
| in finding stuff in the scientific and sylvicultural literature. ...

Definitely. And even the amateur gardening literature!

| (I think that Betula is the closest genus to
| Alnus, but it doesn't have much commercial significance.)

Really? I think that you are wrong there. Where you are right, is
that there is very little commercial interest in breeding it for
particular characteristics - the wild forms do perfectly well. For
example, it accounts for a ridiculous proportion of municipal and
large development tree plantings. It is also quite an important
timber plant in Scandinavia and probably elsewhere - birch ply is
a fairly important commodity, for example.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.