I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.

I am a mature age amateur botanical artist who is interested in progressing
to try some illustration work.

I have checked several web sites and many illustrations, but there seems to
be no set standard format of just what features of a plant should be
represented in an illustration.

So far I have seen the following depicted but not all on the same specimen.

a. Habit
b. male flowers and inflorescence
c.male flowers top view
d.female flowers and inflorescence
e.side view of female flower
f. stipule
g. under surface of leaf
h. close up of under surface of leaf
i. bud side and front view
j. individual petals and open view of petals
k.seed pods
some show cross sections, some don't

Is there such a thing as a standard format or is it just up to the
illustrator toshow what they think?
Is there also a better or best means of showing the scale I understand it is
not sufficient to show 'life size'; x1; x.5 etc. as this becomes
meaningless if an illustration becomes reduced

Gramma

Gramma schreef
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.

***
One of the prime uses of botanical illustrations is to illustrate botanical
/ taxonomic works. These are written by people who will have special and
intimate knowledge of the plants described. Therefore they will know what
parts of the plants it is necessary to feature, and from what angle, perhaps
mounted in a special way. They will so instruct the artists commissioned to
make said illustrations.

So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen
that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists
is critical, after all).

A common device to show scale is a scale bar (usually a line, sometimes with
short cross lines at either end) that represents, say, 1cm, 5cm or 5mm in
the real plant. If the illustration is reduced so is the scale bar.
PvR

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in
:

Gramma schreef
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but
there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.

***
One of the prime uses of botanical illustrations is to illustrate
botanical / taxonomic works. These are written by people who will
have special and intimate knowledge of the plants described.
Therefore they will know what parts of the plants it is necessary
to feature, and from what angle, perhaps mounted in a special way.
They will so instruct the artists commissioned to make said
illustrations.

So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to
which knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It
does happen that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded
so far by taxonomists is critical, after all).

A common device to show scale is a scale bar (usually a line,
sometimes with short cross lines at either end) that represents,
say, 1cm, 5cm or 5mm in the real plant. If the illustration is
reduced so is the scale bar. PvR


This is true, generally the author of the work requests the
illustration, and specifies the important features.

There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical
illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that
you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when
she got her certificate.

Sean

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Gramma schreef
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there
are
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.

snip

So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen
that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by
taxonomists
is critical, after all).


Thank you for replying.

To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking
along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including
at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate
from a botanic garden.

The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be
shown

I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen
I choose.
This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an
illustrator has looked at the plant

I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly makes
sense


Gramma

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1106649932.225ccaab731b22d649df41aa18bf587b@t eranews...
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in
:

Gramma schreef
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but
there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.


snip

There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical
illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that
you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when
she got her certificate.

The Smithsonian would be a bit far for me as I am in Oz
but there are sure to be similar courses here.

Age would not stop me doing something like that, but unfortunately
my pension could !

Not surprisingly, as this is a new direction for me, I have not heard of the
lady you mentioned.
I will do a Google search and see if I can find any of her work

Thank you for your reply

Gramma

Gramma schreef
To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking
along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including
at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate
from a botanic garden.

The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be
shown

I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking
for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant.

***
What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and what botanists regard
as the important features.

It may be relevant who the members of the jury are
PvR

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Gramma schreef

I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking
for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant.

***
What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and

**what botanists regard as the important features.**

I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place.

Gramma...

good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC

Gramma Wrote:
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...-
Gramma schreef-
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but
there
are
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.--

snip
-
So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does
happen
that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by
taxonomists
is critical, after all).-
-
-
Thank you for replying.

To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am
thinking
along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel
including
at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research
associate
from a botanic garden.

The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should
be
shown

I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
specimen
I choose.
This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how
an
illustrator has looked at the plant

I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly
makes
sense


Gramma
-
-

good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC


--
AZTEC

Gramma schreef
What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and

**what botanists regard as the important features.**

I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place.

***
You guess wrong. You asked what in general are important features for
plants in general. A one-size-fits-all approach.

What matters for the illustration is the important features of the
particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to that
group of plants. A competetent illustator working alone will have to do his
homework in order to deliver a product-made-to-measure ...
PvR

Sean Houtman schreef
Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the
original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of
latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English,
but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer).
Those descriptions often say something like "looks like
$SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what
that some other plant looks like.

***
Well, this is OK as far as it goes, but I would much rather recommend a good
monograph. Not only will this make a close comparison between all the
different species now known (rather than those known at the time of the
discovery of one particular species), but it will also be a lot easier to
read, especially for the layman.
PvR

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1106860261.068750950298bc55d9b4ee2cf29183b3@t eranews...

Yes, for this type of illustration, you want to make sure that the
features that separate this species from related ones are clearly
rendered. That may mean that a part that displays that feature is in
the forefront, or angled so that it is easy to see.

That is a fairly standard practice in botanical art,so I am familiar with
looking at a specimen that way. Whether I always get it right is open to
conjecture.

Which features chosen will vary between plants. For instance, if you are
illustrating a grass, and the main feature that separates your
chosen species is the shape of the ligule, you probably want to make
sure that the ligule is prominent.

I have not as yet felt ready to progress to a body of work on any particular
species, but it is swirling around as a project in the dark recesses for
next year.

Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the
original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of
latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English,
but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer).
Those descriptions often say something like "looks like
$SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what
that some other plant looks like.

I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be saying
that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work principally from
the description of a plant in botanical terms.
Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen?

Gramma

"AZTEC" wrote in message
...
-
-

good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC

Thanks
--
If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I
might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course
put me off entering altogether .
[g]

Gramma

Gramma schreef
Well yes, I did think there would be some kind of standard features of a
plant that *must* be included in a botanical drawing.
As there isn't , I have learned something.

***
I suppose that roughly speaking there are such features.
But only roughly speaking
* * *

What matters for the illustration is the important features of the
particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to
that group of plants.

I assumed for the purpose I want, which initially is one illustration of
a chosen plant, that I would be able [that it would be correct to do so ]
to take a living plant and draw it from life.

***
Oh yes, do draw one from life.
But the angle from which you draw, the parts depicted and indeed the very
choice of specimen all depend on what you need to show. These must be
educated choices.
* * *

I may be phrasing that wrongly due to my lack of botanical vocabulary, but
would this be considered an incorrect botanical illustration because it
was a stand alone drawing without any comparison to others of the plant
species?

***
Stand-alone drawings are the norm.
Best advice is to look at a range of monographs, dealing with quite
different plants, such as trees with catkins, trees with "real" flowers,
several herbaceous plants and grasslike plants. That will convey the idea
better than anything anybody can say.
PvR

"Gramma" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be
saying that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work
principally from the description of a plant in botanical terms.
Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen?


Definitely use the live specimen, but remember that the Botanist who
described the plant is familiar with its relatives, and described it in
such a way that some one else would be able to tell them apart using
the description. Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group
of plants, such as a genus or subgenus) also tend to include that
information.

Sean