pcplantdb

["John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>]

Aloha,

> You could say that the botanical plant systematics are the
> only non arbitary way of classifying plants.

That's where our epistemologies diverge, I guess.

IMO they are *all* arbitrary, including the botanical stuff, because we
make them up. No observer is objective, not even plant taxonomists.
There are infinite observable "similarities" or differences" and humans
can perceive some (not all, I'm sure) and then make choices about which
ones they will focus on.

"Cruciferous" is based on choosing one of many human-observable
distinctions.  "Sulfurous" would be equally valid - just hasn't been
chosen as significant by plant taxonomy.

> Anyway this is all rather off the point, family genus and species
> serve our needs very well and we should stear clear of getting too
> botanical.

IMO not off the point at all.

Family genus and species serve me how?

I don't even know what they mean, really - that is, I have not learned
about the arbitrary distinctions and relations they indicate.

In the DB they will be essentially useless to me, unless the DB provides
an understanding of why these distinctions and relations matter and how
they are useful to me in designing with plants.



John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Whole Systems Design Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net