I have come rather late to this thread but do remember raising an eyebrow
when the offending comment was being made on the programme. However, I
don't have the benefit of a replay but am not at all sure that the
indefinite article was included. The claim that a National Collection is a
collection of single species is not in dispute.

And leave off Rachel's rear view!!! I think some of you Urglers must be
watching a 4:3 broadcast in widescreen ; )


"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , David Hill david@abacus
nurseries.freeserve.co.uk writes
I would think that to most people
"I have a collection of species Crocus"
"I have a collection of Crocus species"
would have the same meaning

Yes - and that is fine. But what was in the programme was the suggestion
that Crocus itself was *a* species - in other words 'I have a collection
of Crocus species' would be meaningless because there is only one
species - Crocus. Anything else were merely varieties. That's what got
me cross.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

She's heard that big bums are fashionable and is trying to draw
attention to it ;-)

Please don't say such things about the lovely Rachel as i am desperately in
love with her.

The message
from (AGEM1960) contains these words:

She's heard that big bums are fashionable and is trying to draw
attention to it ;-)

Please don't say such things about the lovely Rachel as i am desperately in
love with her.

If it's true love, surely you love her just as she is, stretchmarked
cellulite and all?

Janet.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:41:30 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:

~
~In article , Kay Easton
writes
~TV tonight - Rachel de Thame
~'a national Collection is a collection of a single *species*' ... then
~almost in the same breath 'the National collection of Crocus' ... so all
~crocus are the same species, are they?
~
~Is this TV dumbing down and protecting its viewers from difficult words
~like 'genus' which they don't understand?
~It surely can't be Rachel de T herself who doesn't understand the
~difference?
~
~This sort of thing does get me cross!
~
~In one of the earlier programmes in the series, she visited the new
~Yorkshire RHS garden and both she and one of the gardeners there used
~the name Mare's Tail when looking at a border full of Horsetail and
~saying that it would have to be eradicated by spraying. OK, Equisetum
~is, sometimes, called Mare's Tail, though I'm not alone in thinking it
~shouldn't be, but the error was doubly confounded by the entry in the
~Radio Times which not only mentioned that they would discuss a problem
~with Mare's Tail but used the Latin name Hippuris vulgaris :-(
~
~If only all my Horsetail could be replaced by Mare's Tail.....!

I grew up calling it Mare's Tail, as my grandad's garden was full of
it. He was a lifelong gardener, with allotments etc and I think it
broke his heart when the next door neighbour never did anything and
the Mare's Tails arrived under the fence. Perhaps this is why Harlow
Carr calls them Mare's Tails - I'm northern too... is there a
north-south split in the common name?

I still am a bit schizo about what common name I use so I tend to
favour equisetum!


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in
t:

"Helen" wrote in message
m...
There are more important things in life to get heated up about than
whether Rachel De Thame said 'species' instead of 'type'....or even
'geno-type'.
I like her. I think the newly revamped Gardener's World with Monty
Don is good. Anyway, he became a hero of mine after I read an article
of his about apples and apple trees in one of the colour magazines.
He has his heart in it and I believe Rachel De Thame does too.

I'm assuming that this woman is on television - which we don't have.

Nevertheless, if she's featuring as an expert she ought to get things
right. Entertainment isn't as important as accuracy ...

You have a right to your opinion, but I can sympathise with TV program-
makers who decide not to listen to it ;-).

TV (which I watch with enthusiasm) is all about entertainment, and I do not
expect it to be particularly accurate in any field. As more and more
channels are created and have to be filled, it will probably get less
accurate still.

Those that care will look up the information in an authoritative source, if
there is one, and learn much more that way, and the rest will not notice
one way or the other.

I discovered when I got to university that pretty much everything I'd been
taught about my degree subject at A level was wrong. Probably if I'd gone
on to do a D.Phil I'd have discovered even more wrongnesses at degree
level.

I am sure that I am completely deluded about subjects I only have an O
level in, and as for stuff like gardening that I have never been taught at
all! Well I should probably give up on that now.

Life is full of being wrong: don't let it get to you.

Victoria

JennyC wrote:

"Kay Easton" wrote
TV tonight - Rachel de Thame
'a national Collection is a collection of a single *species*' ...
then
almost in the same breath 'the National collection of Crocus' ... so
all
crocus are the same species, are they?

Is this TV dumbing down and protecting its viewers from difficult
words
like 'genus' which they don't understand?
It surely can't be Rachel de T herself who doesn't understand the
difference?

This sort of thing does get me cross!
Kay Easton

The Webster dictionary
(http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...h?WORD=species) has the
following.........

3. In zoölogy and botany, a species is an ideal group of individuals
which are believed to have descended from common ancestors, which
agree in essential characteristics, and are capable of indefinitely
continued fertile reproduction through the sexes. A species, as thus
defined, differs from a variety or subspecies only in the greater
stability of its characters and in the absence of individuals
intermediate between the related groups.


Given how much this topic is still debated among zoologists and botanists,
I don't think this is a particularly authoratative definition of a species.
The last line is particularly suspect...have they never heard of hybrids?
Anita (a zoologist)

In article , jane
monmapson.co.uk writes

~If only all my Horsetail could be replaced by Mare's Tail.....!

I have not really followed this thread. I see R de T as a gardening
presenter rather than a horticultural expert or an objet d'art. I am
just wondering if there is any implied correlation between Mare's Tail
and the discussion of her rear?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , jane
monmapson.co.uk writes

~If only all my Horsetail could be replaced by Mare's Tail.....!

I have not really followed this thread. I see R de T as a gardening
presenter rather than a horticultural expert or an objet d'art. I am
just wondering if there is any implied correlation between Mare's Tail
and the discussion of her rear?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

If it's true love, surely you love her just as she is, stretchmarked
cellulite and all?

Janet.

Janet

Of course its true love and please stop trying to undermine it.
Rachel does not have stretch marks or cellulite and if she did it would be
hidden by the jumper around the waist which covers her other imperfections

Michael

The message
from (AGEM1960) contains these words:

If it's true love, surely you love her just as she is, stretchmarked
cellulite and all?

Janet.

Janet

Of course its true love and please stop trying to undermine it.

Moi? I'm merely trying to cushion you from the pain of unrequited
love, which is as sharp as Rachel's nail extensions.

Rachel does not have stretch marks or cellulite and if she did it would be
hidden by the jumper around the waist which covers her other imperfections

What other imperfections are covered up by Rachel's waist?

Janet.

What other imperfections are covered up by Rachel's waist?

Janet.

Rachel has slightly large child bearing hips and is possibly a little over
blessed in the bottom department.
It hurts me to say this but true love is about total honesty.
But this is more than compensated for by her hair, skin colour and texture,
smile and her soft gentle understanding voice.
No woman can match her with the possible exception of Anne Widdicombe or
Margaret Rutherford.

Michael

"AGEM1960" wrote in message
...
What other imperfections are covered up by Rachel's waist?

Janet.

Rachel has slightly large child bearing hips and is possibly a little over
blessed in the bottom department.
It hurts me to say this but true love is about total honesty.
But this is more than compensated for by her hair, skin colour and
texture,
smile and her soft gentle understanding voice.
No woman can match her with the possible exception of Anne Widdicombe or
Margaret Rutherford.

Wot about me?

Mary
Michael

Rachel has slightly large child bearing hips and is possibly a little over
blessed in the bottom department.
It hurts me to say this but true love is about total honesty.
But this is more than compensated for by her hair, skin colour and
texture,
smile and her soft gentle understanding voice.
No woman can match her with the possible exception of Anne Widdicombe or
Margaret Rutherford.

Wot about me?

Mary
Michael





.......and of course Mary Fisher

"AGEM1960" wrote in message
...
Rachel has slightly large child bearing hips and is possibly a little
over
blessed in the bottom department.
It hurts me to say this but true love is about total honesty.
But this is more than compensated for by her hair, skin colour and
texture,
smile and her soft gentle understanding voice.
No woman can match her with the possible exception of Anne Widdicombe
or
Margaret Rutherford.

Wot about me?

Mary
Michael





.......and of course Mary Fisher

Thank you.

takes a bow

gets upright with difficulty

Mary