Subject: Re: Change name of this group

From: "Stefan Vetter" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 1995 09:10:33 -0000

>Gerald W. Roe ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
>: It seems to me that confusion would be avoided if this group's
>: name was changed to bionet.botany or something similar. The  
>word
>: "plants" is understandably misunderstood to have to do with
>: [...]
>

Botany is the scientific field and plants are the objects. 
Everyone can handle with plants but will not do this in a scientic 
way. So, to keep it popular hold the old name, but for a 
scientific forum a new name could be a positive investment.

>Well, being the originator of this group and having been 
>out-voted when
>I proposed it should be named bionet.botany I guess I can have 
>the last
>laugh!
>
>The group name was chosen after a lot of discussion on bionet 
>and, even
>though 'botany' means 'the scientific investigation of plants' I
>accepted the consensus that 'botany' is synonymous with plant 
>taxonomy
>for many people.  
>So, what do we want bionet.plants for?

Heaven's! Especially "for many people" this forum should and must 
point out that botany is _not_ more or less "synonymous with plant 
taxonomy".
Botany is dealing with: physiology, morphology, cytogenetics, 
hereditary, ecology, biochemistry, phytochemistry, agriculture 
&c..
The results of all these fields can give an impact to the 
systematics of plants and taxonomy is dealing with the right names 
of groups coming up.

>	Tony.
>--
>Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  JANET: 
><[email-masked]>
>Rowett Research Institute,            |  other: 
><[email-masked]>
>Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  phone: +44 (0)224 712751
>Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |    fax: +44 (0)224 716687
>
SteVe
Wien, Austria, Europe
[email-masked]

Veterinarmedizinische Universiat Wien
Institut fur Botanik & Lebensmittelkunde
Linke Bahngasse 11
A-1030 Wien
tel ++43+1+711.55.276
fax ++43+1+714.91.05

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Travis)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 12:37:31 -0000

Stefan Vetter ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [...]
: ajt>though 'botany' means 'the scientific investigation of plants' I
: ajt>accepted the consensus that 'botany' is synonymous with plant 
: ajt>taxonomy for many people.  
: ajt>So, what do we want bionet.plants for?

: Heaven's! Especially "for many people" this forum should and must 
: point out that botany is _not_ more or less "synonymous with plant 
: taxonomy".

.... as I said when the group was created, but I accepted the view of
the majority of people involved that bionet.plants was the best name.

: Botany is dealing with: physiology, morphology, cytogenetics, 
: hereditary, ecology, biochemistry, phytochemistry, agriculture 
: &c..
: The results of all these fields can give an impact to the 
: systematics of plants and taxonomy is dealing with the right names 
: of groups coming up.

I totally agree with what you say Stefan, but this issue was discussed
at great length when the group was created.  You are quite right that
"botany" is the most _accurate_ name for the news group.

However, I believe that a more important issue is how to maintain our
reputation for 'serious' scientific discussion in the group *without*
excluding the genuine interest of 'amateur' contributors on the net.

I believe that, as scientists, we have a duty to promote greater public
awareness of science and that bionet.plants is an appropriate place to
do it.  I also believe that encouraging schools with access to the
Internet to post here is one of the most useful things we have done.

	Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  JANET: <[email-masked]>
Rowett Research Institute,            |  other: <[email-masked]>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  phone: +44 (0)224 712751
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |    fax: +44 (0)224 716687

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 28 Mar 1995 16:11:45 +0100

On 3.24.95 Una Smith <[email-masked]> proposed the creation of
two newsgroups in substitution for bionet.plants and the renaming of sci.bio
to sci.bio misc.
This was as follow:

    sci.bio systematics
    sci.bio botany
    sci.bio to sci.bio misc

Although I agree on sci.bio systematics and sci.bio misc, in my opinion the
group sci.bio botany seems still to generic.  Probably the problems connected
with bionet.plants will not go away with this new group.

I thus propose to divide bionet.plants more deeply in this way:

    sci.bio plant physiology
    sci.bio plant development
    sci.bio systematics
    sci.bio botany
    sci.bio to sci.bio misc

Sci.bio plant physiology will cover the whole of the subject (not covered by
bionet.photosynthesis and bionet.N2 fixation). Sci.bio plant development will
undoubtedly become a favourite forum considering the large number of people
involved in this subject.  Sci.bio systematics will cover the taxonomy. Sci.bio
botany will cover the rest of the argument in plant science or it can be cut in
other specialized groups.

Fernando Migliaccio
Institute of Plant Biochemistry
and Ecophysiology.
National Research Council
Italy
<[email-masked]>