In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Anyway, I'm not out to get you!

Why not? They are both probably superb gardeners and/or botanists, but they
have been behaving like a pair of obstreperous ten-year-olds for long enough
by now.

{:-((

Yeah, but I've 'known' them both in urg for a long time, and they post a
lot of good stuff. From my pov, they've 'earned' a bit of stroppiness
;-)

You, being a relative newcomer, are entitled to get cross with them much
more quickly ;-)


--
Kay Easton

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

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

/snippetry/

Not quite convinced of that ;-)
For example, Plantlife, the charity concerned with preserving our wild
flowers, uses the english names, with the latin name following
sometimes, but not always. In conservation circles, vernacular names
seem the norm - I guess because when everyone is talking about the same
country, there's less chance of confusion. It seems to be mainly the
fungi people who talk latin, probably because so many fungi look similar
and haven't had any traditional names.

Isn't that roughly what I said? It is clear that the organisation
to which you refer has to be pretty non-scientific, because English
names rapidly become useless when you need to get down to the
subspecies level. And a lot of the biodiversity threats in the UK
are to subspecies, rather than to species - if fo no other reason
that we have almost NO endemic species of plants!

When I refer to 'Chanterelles' it is Cantharellus infundibuliformis I
mean, and I refer to C. cibarius as 'Girolles'.

Somewhere along the line the name 'chanterelle' has been appended to the
wrong mushroom and common usage has diverged from the original French -
which is after all, where both names originated.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Nor is it still, but I notice now that there are no ferns in it either.

I don't know, but isn't the Concise British Flora a book on flowering
plants? Then they wouldn't be in it.

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Anyway, I'm not out to get you!

Why not? They are both probably superb gardeners and/or botanists, but
they
have been behaving like a pair of obstreperous ten-year-olds for long
enough
by now.

{:-((

Yeah, but I've 'known' them both in urg for a long time, and they post a
lot of good stuff. From my pov, they've 'earned' a bit of stroppiness
;-)

Even in the short time I have been enjoying myself in urg, I have noticed
that they both emit much good sense, except when they are talking to each
other. The latter situation is tiresome, to say the least.


You, being a relative newcomer, are entitled to get cross with them much
more quickly ;-)

I have done so. I do, however regain my equanimity very quickly aand very
completely.

Franz

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

It really does not matter one iota which of you has the last word.

Franz
Franz

For those who may be getting a little confused, I think that means
that one Franz believes it doesn't matter one iota who has the last
word, and the other Franz disagrees.

Me too.

Janet

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

It really does not matter one iota which of you has the last word.

Franz
Franz

For those who may be getting a little confused, I think that means
that one Franz believes it doesn't matter one iota who has the last
word, and the other Franz disagrees.

Me too.

Janet

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

It really does not matter one iota which of you has the last word.

Franz
Franz

For those who may be getting a little confused, I think that means
that one Franz believes it doesn't matter one iota who has the last
word, and the other Franz disagrees.

Me too.

Janet

In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

What about stopping this eternal dogfight witihout further ado?
It really does not matter one iota which of you has the last word.

ROFL! Unless the subject is top/bottom posting when Franz must have the
last word :-)

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:10:30 +0100, Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Nor is it still, but I notice now that there are no ferns in it either.

I don't know, but isn't the Concise British Flora a book on flowering
plants? Then they wouldn't be in it.

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

I'm aware of the meanings of flora and fauna. I just wondered, because it
could be the case that he concentrated on the flowering plants, which most
poeple might be interested in in a general book. I don't have a copy of the
book (obviously), does it exclude liverworts as well? Or does it actually
have any non-flowering plants in it?


--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:10:30 +0100, Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Nor is it still, but I notice now that there are no ferns in it either.

I don't know, but isn't the Concise British Flora a book on flowering
plants? Then they wouldn't be in it.

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

I'm aware of the meanings of flora and fauna. I just wondered, because it
could be the case that he concentrated on the flowering plants, which most
poeple might be interested in in a general book. I don't have a copy of the
book (obviously), does it exclude liverworts as well? Or does it actually
have any non-flowering plants in it?


--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

In article m, Tim
Challenger d writes
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:10:30 +0100, Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Nor is it still, but I notice now that there are no ferns in it either.

I don't know, but isn't the Concise British Flora a book on flowering
plants? Then they wouldn't be in it.

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

I'm aware of the meanings of flora and fauna. I just wondered, because it
could be the case that he concentrated on the flowering plants, which most
poeple might be interested in in a general book. I don't have a copy of the
book (obviously), does it exclude liverworts as well? Or does it actually
have any non-flowering plants in it?

No, unless you call sedges and grasses non-flowering plants which I've
known people do!

--
Malcolm Ogilvie

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

It really does not matter one iota which of you has the last word.

Franz
Franz

For those who may be getting a little confused, I think that means
that one Franz believes it doesn't matter one iota who has the last
word, and the other Franz disagrees.

Me too.

Firstly, sorry about the duplication. Senility reigns. Forget the second
signature.
Secondly, I am lost about what Janet is Meing too to.
{:-))

Franz

Janet

The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

I'm aware of the meanings of flora and fauna. I just wondered, because it
could be the case that he concentrated on the flowering plants, which most
poeple might be interested in in a general book. I don't have a copy of the
book (obviously), does it exclude liverworts as well? Or does it actually
have any non-flowering plants in it?

Depends on your definition of 'flowering'. It has grasses, coniferous
trees and some plants which spread vegetatively.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:
The message m
from Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" contains
these words:

Not exclusively. Flora is used in that context as opposed to fauna.

I'm aware of the meanings of flora and fauna. I just wondered, because it
could be the case that he concentrated on the flowering plants, which most
poeple might be interested in in a general book. I don't have a copy of the
book (obviously), does it exclude liverworts as well? Or does it actually
have any non-flowering plants in it?

Depends on your definition of 'flowering'. It has grasses, coniferous
trees and some plants which spread vegetatively.

Well, yes, but it has a technical meaning in this context. That
includes grasses and conifers, but not horsetails, ferns etc.

The term "vascular plants" includes those, but not mosses and
liverworts, and that is another group included in many books.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

Secondly, I am lost about what Janet is Meing too to.
{:-))

I don't have a tutu, what are you on about now?

Janet.