RE: Academe vs. hobby

Michael.Chamberland (23274MJC@MSU.EDU)
Tue, 29 Oct 96 10:45 EST

> From: Perry Malouf <pmalouf@access.digex.net>
>
> Should the CPN move toward the academic "market" (is there a "market"
> in academe?)? Or should it be geared toward the hobbyist only? I
> think that a balance must be struck between the two extremes.

I agree. The Cactus & Succulent Journal (USA) also does a fine job of
alternating between hobby and research oriented articles.

> (I might ask researchers if CP articles are published in some
> of the more recognized peer-reviewed botanical journals.)

Certainly! The August 1996 issue of American Journal of Botany vol 83(8)
has an article titled "Genetic Structure of two endangered pitcher plants,
Sarracenia jonesii and S. oreophila" by Gott and Hamrick. The June 1996
Issue of Biotropica has an article titled "Structure and dynamics in
Nepenthes madagascarensis pitcher plant micro-communities" by Ratsirarson
and Silander. These are a couple recent ones.

> I'm sure the editors of CPN will handle the most recent controversey
> (over the article about the red VFT and associated legalities) in a
> proper manner. If errors were made, then the editors will have the

The Cactus and Succulent Journal is filled with controversial discussion,
usually placed in the letters to the editor section. There you'll find
the hobbyists (splitters) battling against the taxonomists (lumpers); those
who want field-collected plants allowed in shows vs. those who want them
disqualified for competition; those who advocate publication of new species
based on plants which were illegally collected vs. those who do not,
etc...

Michael Chamberland