On 2/11/07 20:40, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 2/11/07 19:39, in article , "K"
wrote:

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes


"Puke"
Well that is the name of something that most people find repulsive and
vile.
I don't think David is far off the mark.

That may be true, but name calling is not a particularly clever way of
arguing, nor one which readily helps newcomers recognise the validity of
your case.

You will, of course, be making that remark to Helene Rudlin, too, won't you,
Kay? In the interests of newcomers, of course, not those who've been
helping others for years.

I think the old saying about "two wrongs not making a right" applies
here. While I see the provocation, and understand the temptation, the
name calling is neither ethical nor productive. It may be
counterproductive; firstly it makes it harder for the casual reader to
tell who is on the side of the angels; and secondly it helps the
recipients self-misperception as an innocent victim.

Having someone watch her so-called (ex) 'friends' ripped to shreds and then
smugly smacking the wrist of one of those coming late to the party in their
defence, doesn't sit well with me or a lot of others, either.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

In article , Martin
writes

Salcombe Rosemarie, the sailors friend?


What, clingy, down to earth and does well in a bed
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On 3/11/07 12:13, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes

Salcombe Rosemarie, the sailors friend?


What, clingy, down to earth and does well in a bed

Probably best not associated with the Rambling Rector, then. ;-)
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 3/11/07 12:42, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:30:50 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 3/11/07 12:13, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes

Salcombe Rosemarie, the sailors friend?


What, clingy, down to earth and does well in a bed

Probably best not associated with the Rambling Rector, then. ;-)

or Busy Lizie.

The hussy!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

* Sacha wrote, On 03/11/2007 12:54:
On 3/11/07 12:42, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:30:50 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 3/11/07 12:13, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes

Salcombe Rosemarie, the sailors friend?

What, clingy, down to earth and does well in a bed
Probably best not associated with the Rambling Rector, then. ;-)
or Busy Lizie.

The hussy!

It could be planted with Brazen Hussies though

--
Cheers, Serena
Just when I was getting used to yesterday, along came today.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

and had the most appalling stomach craps



Freudian slip showing ?

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Martin
writes

Calm down. He's already been exposed.

Yes sorry Martin, my follow up seemed to overlap the wealth of other
replies!


--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


Er, not quite. It seems that the difference is more complicated than
that, and it is unclear whether "Russian" versus "French" tarragon is
different varieties or different growth (as normal ivy versus tree
ivy). Tarragon does vary between tasteless and strongly flavoured,
but the cause of the difference is, I believe, unknown. In particular,
"Russian" tarragon can develop into "French" tarragon after some years
of growth, and "French" tarragon can revert to "Russian" tarragon.
I tried chasing this issue down some years back, and eventually gave
up.


I've been looking (casually) at various reference books including the Oxford
Book of Food Plants and Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food (both of which
are the type of book that one opens to check one thing and find that one is
still reading it an hour later). There appear to be 2 species: Artemisia
dracunculus (French) and A. dracunculoides (Russian). I can see why you
gave up as none of the references is definitive. What is needed is a
botanist/gourmet to sort out the confusion{:-)

The difference between true (Grecian) bay, Californian bay and most
others is that they are unrelated plants with similar appearances and
tastes. The similarity of appearance is not surprising, as it is a
very common one for dry-terrain shrubs. True bay is Laurus nobilis,
Californian bay is Umbellularia californica, and there are others.

Interestingly, U. californica is also known as the Oregon Myrtle and in that
state, apparently, there are numerous roadside stalls selling knick-knacks
made from the wood. The selling point is the myth that it only grows there
and in the Holy Land (absolute nonsense, of course). I acquired a plank of
it some years ago and it is lovely stuff to work. Fresh-cut surfaces give
off a lemony smell.
Graham

In article _0oXi.174399$Da.95462@pd7urf1no, says...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


Er, not quite. It seems that the difference is more complicated than
that, and it is unclear whether "Russian" versus "French" tarragon is
different varieties or different growth (as normal ivy versus tree
ivy). Tarragon does vary between tasteless and strongly flavoured,
but the cause of the difference is, I believe, unknown. In particular,
"Russian" tarragon can develop into "French" tarragon after some years
of growth, and "French" tarragon can revert to "Russian" tarragon.
I tried chasing this issue down some years back, and eventually gave
up.


I've been looking (casually) at various reference books including the Oxford
Book of Food Plants and Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food (both of which
are the type of book that one opens to check one thing and find that one is
still reading it an hour later). There appear to be 2 species: Artemisia
dracunculus (French) and A. dracunculoides (Russian). I can see why you
gave up as none of the references is definitive. What is needed is a
botanist/gourmet to sort out the confusion{:-)

.
Graham



The two tarragons are completely different species they look different
taste different and grow differently, so called Russian tarragon is easy
to do from seed, the french is not, as to correct species names, no idea!
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| I've been looking (casually) at various reference books including the Oxford
| Book of Food Plants and Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food (both of which
| are the type of book that one opens to check one thing and find that one is
| still reading it an hour later). There appear to be 2 species: Artemisia
| dracunculus (French) and A. dracunculoides (Russian). I can see why you
| gave up as none of the references is definitive. What is needed is a
| botanist/gourmet to sort out the confusion{:-)
|
| The two tarragons are completely different species they look different
| taste different and grow differently, so called Russian tarragon is easy
| to do from seed, the french is not, as to correct species names, no idea!

I believe that is false, and there is a single, polymorphic species.
And the regression/development effect I mentioned turns mere confusion
into chaos. I.e. there are plants that are clearly one or the other,
a complete range of intermediates, and a clone's position on the scale
can wander around a bit.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| I've been looking (casually) at various reference books including
| the Oxford
| Book of Food Plants and Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food (both
| of which
| are the type of book that one opens to check one thing and find
| that one is
| still reading it an hour later). There appear to be 2 species: Artemisia
| dracunculus (French) and A. dracunculoides (Russian). I can see why you
| gave up as none of the references is definitive. What is needed is a
| botanist/gourmet to sort out the confusion{:-)
|
| The two tarragons are completely different species they look different
| taste different and grow differently, so called Russian tarragon is easy
| to do from seed, the french is not, as to correct species names, no idea!

I believe that is false, and there is a single, polymorphic species.
And the regression/development effect I mentioned turns mere confusion
into chaos. I.e. there are plants that are clearly one or the other,
a complete range of intermediates, and a clone's position on the scale
can wander around a bit.

There's not much botanical available online, but I found a 2007 paper
with assorted chromosome counts for subgenus Dracunculus. This reports 4
cytotypes of A. dracunculus (diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid and
decaploid), and gives A. dracunculoides as hexaploid. Wikipedia says
that French tarragon can't be propagated by seed, but elsewhere I see
claims that it's just a matter of poor seed set in cool climates.

Botanists don't seem to agree as to whether there is one species or two.

There is a paper on Artemisia phylogeny, but it's behind a pay-wall, and
I doubt that is sheds light on the dracunculus/dracuncoloides issue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| There's not much botanical available online, but I found a 2007 paper
| with assorted chromosome counts for subgenus Dracunculus. This reports 4
| cytotypes of A. dracunculus (diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid and
| decaploid), and gives A. dracunculoides as hexaploid. Wikipedia says
| that French tarragon can't be propagated by seed, but elsewhere I see
| claims that it's just a matter of poor seed set in cool climates.

Boggle. I didn't know about the chromosome counts. That sounds
bizarre even by plant standards.

| Botanists don't seem to agree as to whether there is one species or two.

Or four, or .... Until and unless there is some evidence on whether
the various ploidies are inter-fertile, that sounds like angels on a
pinhead material.

| There is a paper on Artemisia phylogeny, but it's behind a pay-wall, and
| I doubt that is sheds light on the dracunculus/dracuncoloides issue.

Yeah, me too :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| There's not much botanical available online, but I found a 2007 paper
| with assorted chromosome counts for subgenus Dracunculus. This reports 4
| cytotypes of A. dracunculus (diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid and
| decaploid), and gives A. dracunculoides as hexaploid. Wikipedia says
| that French tarragon can't be propagated by seed, but elsewhere I see
| claims that it's just a matter of poor seed set in cool climates.

Boggle. I didn't know about the chromosome counts. That sounds
bizarre even by plant standards.

There's many plant "species" with multiple cytotypes, and botanists
historically have not commonly recognised cytotypes as species. (It
seems to me that this attitude is beginning to change.)

For example the Lesser Celandine has (at least) three cytotypes -
diploids (ssp. ficaria), tetraploids (ssp. bulbifera) and triploids.
Contrary to Stace, I reckon this to be a clear case of two species - he
says that triploids are completely sterile. (Compared to a couple of
triploid mallow hybrids [sylvestris x durieui and alcea x moschata] I
grow, which have seed set at about 0.5%.)

The Yellow Archangel and Rosebay Willow Herb have diploid and tetraploid
cytotypes. So does Hibiscus trionum. And then there's the various
tetraploid cultivars, such as Myosotis 'Azur'. Some sterile Hibiscus
syriacus cultivars were created by forming tetraploids with colchicine
treatment, and backcrossing to the diploids.

In the Centaurea jacea complex of knapweeds (C. jacea and C. nigra) the
species boundary appears to lie not between the jacea- and nigra-morphs,
but between the diploid and tetraploid cytotypes.

The existence of multiple cytotypes suggests the existence of multiple
species, but is not conclusive. I don't know of an unambiguous case of a
plant species polymorphic for ploidy, but I wouldn't be surprised if
there was one. There are permanent odd polyploids which segregate m
haploid genomes into the embryo sac, and n haploid genomes into the
pollen - the best known case is the dog roses, but there's maybe half a
dozen other cases known. One could imagine a plant in which the same
segregation happened in triploids, except not specific to either sex, so
diploids, triploids and tetraploids were freely interbreeding.
Alternately if triploids produced unreduced gametes, and tetraploids and
hexaploids had regular meiosis, you could have a mix of diploids,
triploid, tetraploids and hexaploids - and possibly more depending on
what pentaploids did.

| Botanists don't seem to agree as to whether there is one species or two.

Or four, or .... Until and unless there is some evidence on whether
the various ploidies are inter-fertile, that sounds like angels on a
pinhead material.

| There is a paper on Artemisia phylogeny, but it's behind a pay-wall, and
| I doubt that is sheds light on the dracunculus/dracuncoloides issue.

Yeah, me too :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| There's many plant "species" with multiple cytotypes, and botanists
| historically have not commonly recognised cytotypes as species. (It
| seems to me that this attitude is beginning to change.)

Yes, I knew that, but I didn't know that that any included from diploid
to decaploid!

| For example the Lesser Celandine has (at least) three cytotypes -
| diploids (ssp. ficaria), tetraploids (ssp. bulbifera) and triploids.
| Contrary to Stace, I reckon this to be a clear case of two species - he
| says that triploids are completely sterile. (Compared to a couple of
| triploid mallow hybrids [sylvestris x durieui and alcea x moschata] I
| grow, which have seed set at about 0.5%.)

Yes. The question is how distinct they are, with interfertility being
the best criterion (but not the only one).

| The existence of multiple cytotypes suggests the existence of multiple
| species, but is not conclusive. I don't know of an unambiguous case of a
| plant species polymorphic for ploidy, but I wouldn't be surprised if
| there was one. ...

Nor would I, but it is not reasonable to state that such a plant is
definitely a single species, without confirmatory evidence of some sort.
Some scientists have great difficulty in using the word "probably",
let alone the word "possibly", with regard to their theories.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.