In message <Pine.PMDF.3.91.961124112232.541078854D-100000 at cluster.cwu.edu>
reynolds at CWU.EDU writes:
> A colleague, a taxonomist, and I (plant ecologist) are planning a summer
> field botany course for our biology majors. ....
> ....
> We want our class to produce good field botanists who can not only identify
> species but will understand why they are found where they are.
I have a similar problem. In UK we are trying to organise Atlas2000
to publish a new altas of the flora of UK with distribution maps on a
10km square basis for about 2000 species.
People are volunteering to help, but they are not yet experienced
field botanists and so don't find all there is to find, and sometimes
get it wrong. I am starting to organise some 'training' and so have
a similar objective to Doug Reynolds.
My definition of a good field botanist is one who sees all the plants
in an area, and recognises most of them, also seeing the ones that
cannot be recognised. The good field botanist also has an eye for
ground (habitats - plant communities - differences in vegetation?)
and automatically goes towards them. At the same time the field
botanist always knows their present grid reference and writes it all
down accurately.
So what sort of things should the training consist of?
Exercises in using keys and plant anatomy will probably be too simple
and possibly put people off. Competition should be in there, and
making it fun and companionable.
I would suggest that the lab time should be minimal, because you want
to get the jizz of as many plants as possible into peoples minds,
together with all those silly aide memoires which are so useful
differentiate species.
--
Pete Selby
(pete.selby at zetnet.co.uk)
