|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 30, 2015 23:19:13 GMT
Hi all, I've started a post in my blog of a demonstration and 'walk-through' of the use of Clive Stace's magnificent 'New Flora of the British Isles' (3rd ed) to ID a wildflower using the often daunting key-system that it contains...
I'm going to use the previously-discussed (in the 'Is this a Galeopsis?' thread) Stachys sylvatica as the example for identification. If you fancy a look I've just posted the start of the ID , and will continue very soon. I haven't posted it here as I think it may be a bit too large and hog resources, as well as being of limited interest to many without a key-driven book such as Stace's.
Anyway, hope it's OK to post the link - it will hopefully help if you're having trouble getting to grips with the (extremely powerful and enjoyable) key-system. When I first attempted to use the keys I had nightmares  trying to understand them - finally I actually read Stace's advice (yes, in his introduction all along..) properly and hey-presto - started to use them correctly and successfully!
It's there if you fancy it - sorry if this link is inappropriate or bad etiquette - please tell me if it is and I'll remove it straight-away - I'm new to forums generally (I only use 1 other than this one) and very new to trying to use blogs!
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Aug 1, 2015 9:16:02 GMT
As I have already said, I think your blog does an excellent job of taking people step by step through a plant key, complete with first-class images of various plants parts that they might not be able to see for themselves. Using Stace instead of Rose is ambitious indeed, and I am going to recommend to some students of field botany that they have a look at the blog, where there is plenty for them to learn.
I hope you won't mind if I also enter a proviso? Some people who are new to field botany will inevitably – in spite of the careful and professional presentation – be daunted by your use of an extensive new vocabulary, attention to minute detail and number of steps required to ID an unknown plant. Confident ID of everyday plants is usually where people want to begin. So I would just like to add that this can be achieved quite satisfactorily for common plants like Stachys syvaticus without Stace (or even Francis Rose), without a microscope, and without learning too many difficult words! When I have a bit more time, I hope to show how. Meanwhile, I do have a couple of books of my own that aim to make botany easier for beginners, if anyone wants to ask me about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 1, 2015 15:34:39 GMT
Looking forward to the exercise John. It will prove interesting to follow as I never 'got on' with Stace.
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 1, 2015 15:38:00 GMT
As I have already said, I think your blog does an excellent job of taking people step by step through a plant key, complete with first-class images of various plants parts that they might not be able to see for themselves. Using Stace instead of Rose is ambitious indeed, and I am going to recommend to some students of field botany that they have a look at the blog, where there is plenty for them to learn. I hope you won't mind if I also enter a proviso? Some people who are new to field botany will inevitably – in spite of the careful and professional presentation – be daunted by your use of an extensive new vocabulary, attention to minute detail and number of steps required to ID an unknown plant. Confident ID of everyday plants is usually where people want to begin. So I would just like to add that this can be achieved quite satisfactorily for common plants like Stachys syvaticus without Stace (or even Francis Rose), without a microscope, and without learning too many difficult words! When I have a bit more time, I hope to show how. Meanwhile, I do have a couple of books of my own that aim to make botany easier for beginners, if anyone wants to ask me about them. I would love to know your choice of books for beginners Faith, as I'm sure many members would.
Vince
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 1, 2015 20:19:25 GMT
As I have already said, I think your blog does an excellent job of taking people step by step through a plant key, complete with first-class images of various plants parts that they might not be able to see for themselves. Using Stace instead of Rose is ambitious indeed, and I am going to recommend to some students of field botany that they have a look at the blog, where there is plenty for them to learn. I hope you won't mind if I also enter a proviso? Some people who are new to field botany will inevitably – in spite of the careful and professional presentation – be daunted by your use of an extensive new vocabulary, attention to minute detail and number of steps required to ID an unknown plant. Confident ID of everyday plants is usually where people want to begin. So I would just like to add that this can be achieved quite satisfactorily for common plants like Stachys syvaticus without Stace (or even Francis Rose), without a microscope, and without learning too many difficult words! When I have a bit more time, I hope to show how. Meanwhile, I do have a couple of books of my own that aim to make botany easier for beginners, if anyone wants to ask me about them. Wow - I've never had a proviso suggested to me before in a forum... Of course there are easier ways to ID a wildflower than the use of some of the more 'dense' books such as Stace's, that will require a lot of confidence to use. I too lacked the confidence or ability to do so, as my blog mentions, I started with a lovely little photographic guide that fitted nicely into my pocket. I found the process of further study of wildflowers, botany and the use of further books very enjoyable, stimulating and interesting to say the least. I'm simply demonstrating the use of a few books, not suggesting in any way that they're are vital or necessary, rather that the new skills and confidence I personally have painstakingly gained and which have led me quite naturally (for me personally of course) to such books has been an incredibly enjoyable, empowering and life-enriching experience - yes, it's really given me that much.. I have never approached in particular the identification of wildflowers, with the desire or aim to 'do it' in the 'easiest' way possible - I've already mentioned that I have a fundamental interest in wildflowers and thoroughly enjoy studying, admiring and discussing them in forums such as this one. Yes, easy is good if that's what you like, I personally and I suspect others may feel the same to some extent, enjoy the investigation & mystery - not the knowledge of the name of a plant without any further information. I also think that most people are far more capable than you may judge them to be, your experiences in field workshops notwithstanding. I too have much experience of tutoring large groups of students, of all ages and educational-experiences, most of whom spent a lot of time being treated as if they had a fraction of the ability that they in fact possessed. I of course 'get where you're coming from' - books such as Stace's are not for everyone, but they are exactly what others would love to 'get to grips with' as they are fully aware that the more you put into most interests the more you get out. Simple as that. I really am unsure why you seem to be so negative regarding the posts that I am producing? Everyone has their own opinion, so why not simply let them come to their own conclusions - those that feel as you do will ignore what I am sharing, those that have had or are having similar experiences and preferences to myself will enjoy them and hopefully take them in the spirit in which they are conceived - ' if you like the more comprehensive and detailed approach - have a go, here're a few ideas and tips, see how you get on'.... Not everyone automatically looks for the easiest method - the doing is at least as enjoyable as the end product - to me for one. 'Easiest' is not bad, and neither is 'more difficult or demanding'. Personally I think (based upon much experience) that we all deserve to be considered capable, rather than given the impression that something's too hard or unsuitable for us because it may take some time to master - that, I think, does everyone a disservice and it is not my approach to anyone I encounter, ever. In summary, please try to let folks make up their own minds, and please don't presume to place a proviso on anything I or others may wish to discuss or share - you share you experiences and I'll share mine - nobody needs to be considered wrong or right, if you don't like my posts or their contents fine - don't read them. But please, allow others enjoy them if they want to. Forget intellectual 'grading' of folk, just let them be. Sorry if you find this post disagreeable but I'm starting to feel a little 'under-siege' from your continued negativity - I'm going to continue to post in the manner I enjoy, if that isn't to your taste then I'm sorry, but that's all. It's not a competition after all, it's an enjoyable pursuit. |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 2, 2015 3:12:48 GMT
Looking forward to the exercise John. It will prove interesting to follow as I never 'got on' with Stace.
Vince Hi Vince, yes Stace gave me many hours of confusion and frustration for about the first 3 months, only recently have I actually read Stace's own simple advice on the use of the key-system, it worked perfectly with a little practice and a tatty old dictionary (bought I think for about 93p)! Now armed with this knowledge I'm able to get the best from Francis Rose's and Poland's superb books too - including a fantastic book on grasses - a really fascinating area to me at least - namely - Grasses of the British Isles (BSBI Handbooks) Paperback – 30 Oct 2009 which is another detailed book that uses keys! This is a great and yes, detailed book that allows the user to approach something such as these: With confidence. More on the Stace walk-through hopefully by tonight Vince.  grass_book_front by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr  grass_mosaic by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 2, 2015 16:28:20 GMT
As I have already said, I think your blog does an excellent job of taking people step by step through a plant key, complete with first-class images of various plants parts that they might not be able to see for themselves. Using Stace instead of Rose is ambitious indeed, and I am going to recommend to some students of field botany that they have a look at the blog, where there is plenty for them to learn. A great idea Faith. Could I be so bold as to ask that you might direct them here too. I'm also interested in your simple methodology of identification of wildflowers. Something that we all could benefit from.
Vince.
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 2, 2015 16:29:44 GMT
Looking forward to the exercise John. It will prove interesting to follow as I never 'got on' with Stace.
Vince Hi Vince, yes Stace gave me many hours of confusion and frustration for about the first 3 months, only recently have I actually read Stace's own simple advice on the use of the key-system, it worked perfectly with a little practice and a tatty old dictionary (bought I think for about 93p)! Now armed with this knowledge I'm able to get the best from Francis Rose's and Poland's superb books too - including a fantastic book on grasses - a really fascinating area to me at least - namely - Grasses of the British Isles (BSBI Handbooks) Paperback – 30 Oct 2009 which is another detailed book that uses keys! This is a great and yes, detailed book that allows the user to approach something such as these: With confidence. More on the Stace walk-through hopefully by tonight Vince. Looking forward to it John |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 2, 2015 19:58:41 GMT
Looking forward to it John We're off - first part just published - Stace - an ID begins. Hope you enjoy it Stig, more as soon as I get time. Alert to those who have an aversion to "difficult words" and detailed study - don't go there - you may not enjoy it, but... you never know! |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Aug 3, 2015 8:09:15 GMT
I swear this is the last post I am going to make here, as I don't seem able to rebut the charge of 'negativity' when I am only trying to encourage the less confident. But John is indeed a brilliant student of botany if the BSBI's handbook on Grasses enables him to identify a Luzula (pictured), which does rather prove my point about running before you can walk . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 3, 2015 9:38:45 GMT
I swear this is the last post I am going to make here, as I don't seem able to rebut the charge of 'negativity' when I am only trying to encourage the less confident. But John is indeed a brilliant student of botany if the BSBI's handbook on Grasses enables him to identify a Luzula (pictured), which does rather prove my point about running before you can walk . . . Faith why not create a thread on how to ID a specimen using different approach? It occurs to me to be a case of 'horses for courses' Now I'm a simple soul and will readily look into any approach and marvel at the complex and simple methods alike. What we do need as a community is for all methods to be embraced, and folk to share their experience.
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 3, 2015 9:40:19 GMT
I swear this is the last post I am going to make here, as I don't seem able to rebut the charge of 'negativity' when I am only trying to encourage the less confident. But John is indeed a brilliant student of botany if the BSBI's handbook on Grasses enables him to identify a Luzula (pictured), which does rather prove my point about running before you can walk . . . Faith, please don't even consider leaving this fine forum - you're a very valuable and valued contributor and I for one (not the only one that's certain) enjoy your informed contributions. I'm only 'doing my thing in my way' and you're only doing the same. Our approaches are definitely not mutually exclusive, just different. You have every right to be here and nobody can tell you otherwise, and in this fine forum you are undeniably welcome and valued - sincerely - that's truly how I feel. Please stay, you would definitely be missed - I mean what I say Faith, you've no need to refute anything and I'm not the only one that feels that way, of that I'm certain - the folks here are a super bunch and you are part of that bunch as much as myself or anyone else. I can only apologize for making you feel bad, I'm very upset and feel very responsible for this and am truly sorry. We're not competitors, none of us are Faith - again, please stay. Please accept this 'rose of apology' - my apology is sincere. Warmest regards  an_apology by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 3, 2015 9:43:22 GMT
I swear this is the last post I am going to make here, as I don't seem able to rebut the charge of 'negativity' when I am only trying to encourage the less confident. But John is indeed a brilliant student of botany if the BSBI's handbook on Grasses enables him to identify a Luzula (pictured), which does rather prove my point about running before you can walk . . . Faith why not create a thread on how to ID a specimen using different approach? It occurs to me to be a case of 'horses for courses' Now I'm a simple soul and will readily look into any approach and marvel at the complex and simple methods alike. What we do need as a community is for all methods to be embraced, and folk to share their experience.
Vince Ditto Vince - that's 'bang on' we're all here for the same reason - we love wildflowers! We're a team and are fundamentally 'on the same wavelength' - well said! |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Aug 3, 2015 19:56:39 GMT
Looking forward to it John We're off - first part just published - Stace - an ID begins. Hope you enjoy it Stig, more as soon as I get time. Alert to those who have an aversion to "difficult words" and detailed study - don't go there - you may not enjoy it, but... you never know! And off to a good start John. As I've found out over the years it is sometimes best to eliminate what the specimen cannot be and run with the alternative. Another mistake I made earlier on using dichotomous keys was not to read both alternatives carefully, sometimes a little 'if' makes all the difference
Vince
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 3, 2015 21:10:27 GMT
This is so true Vince, the wording has to be read very carefully when dealing with 'maybe' or 'sometimes' or 'if not A they B & C' etc - the authors have to strive for brevity and accuracy - an almost impossible combination at times, but they (e.g. Stace) manage it brilliantly - we just need to knuckle-down and get pedantic! I learn so much when following one of Stace's keys for example, so many off-shoots need attention, clarifications gained and all-round study rewards, very enjoyable not to mention informative! When working on Stachys sylvatica I spent an hour of amazement and pleasure just learning what a rhizome actually, technically, as referred to in the books, actually is! Total pleasure and learning, certainly helps me now when considering the annual / perennial aspects, energy-storage structures being very indicative I recently found out. Great fun! Oops - I seem to have hacked-off your quote - apologies but now I don't know how to put it back....... |
|
trying to understand them - finally I actually read Stace's advice (yes, in his introduction all along..) properly and hey-presto - started to use them correctly and successfully! 
