[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]

Re: Legal Question

> I suppose the thing to do is ASK the
> publisher in these cases.

OK, I can understand that - but in many cases, the publishers are long gone.

Perhaps some background will help you understand what I'm thinking of. I
found a file on the KRIB called the "big plant list" that various people
have worked on over the years. Many of the plant names we use in the hobby
are wrong and those mistakes get propagated each time a new book or listing
comes out. That makes it difficult in some cases for different people to
know what plant is under discussion.

Starting with the separate genera (ignoring for the moment the various
species within each genus), I also went through the commercial listings from
Tropica, Dennerle, Florida Aqua Farms, Oriental and a few other commercial
nurseries (any I could obtain listings from). I checked each unique listed
genus name for validity and authority through a number of online botanical
databases (recording the source and the available information for each
genus). Dave Wilson supplied me with a long list of Australian aquatics
which I merged with the listing of names that I had and I also used a few
field guides to wetland species to get a few more names. Right now, I have
212 names listed - each of which represents either a genus that contains
aquatic and/or amphibious species (and thus of potential interest to aquatic
gardeners). A number of genera are listed purely because they AREN'T aquatic
but sold by one or more aquatic plant nurseries (suitable for terrariums and
or paludariums I guess).

I have been able to locate 34 names which are either synonyms, misspellings,
or totally off the wall (what is "Figan" or "Mexican"???), for all of the
rest, I have located the authority, date and place of first publication,
type species (if designated). I have also been able to "plug" each genera
into a number of classification systems (i.e. Cronquist, APG) which
indicates how various botanists think they are related to one another and to
other, non aquatic plants.

This material (what I have collected to date) should all be "public domain",
but would certainly benefit in a historical perspective by being "fleshed
out" either by reference to the actual papers where the plants in question
were actually described and/or named. For many genera, this would mean going
into a library and photocopying books or journals published in the 1700's
and 1800's. I don't think anyone can claim copyright infringement on
something printed in 1755 (I could be wrong on that). If obtaining a copy of
the orginal material is impractical or impossible, at least I have reference
to the actural jorunal (year, date, pages) where the material could be found
by someone if they really needed or wanted it.

More recent and up to date "revisions" of various genera (such as the one
that Karen used as the basis of her articles) would also be of possibly
great interest/use to people looking at aquatic plants in future if they
were available in one place (where possible), or if we had at the very least
a listing of where the original articles might be obtained if permission to
use them as I'd like to see not be obtainable.

Charley Bay made some good points - but I do have a problem with the "quote
portions of articles" bit. What I'd like to see is the _complete_ article,
not an exerpt (then you never wonder what was edited out....) but I realize
that this might not be possible in a lot of cases. In those cases, I guess
that explicit directions to the original article and how someone could
obtain their own copy of it would have to do.

Basically, I'd like to see something set up so that in future people don't
necessarily have to "reinvent the wheel" when they want to know the name of
a plant or who first gave it its name, or any other information about the
plant that we can think to add. I'm not looking to publish a book for
personal gain - I think that something like this would be of most benefit if
it was on the AGA web site.

What I have right now is rather "bibliographic" in nature but could
relatively easily
be further fleshed out with information on the various species within each
genera - wouldn't it be nice if an AGA member in search of information on
aquatic plants could count on finding the information on the AGA web site or
in an AGA publication???? Locality, growth habit, cultivation information,
commercial sources, etc., etc........ even possibly photographs of the
plants - remembering that many of the photos in many books are labelled

James Purchase

 To unsubscribe from this list, please send mail to majordomo@thekrib.com
 with "Unsubscribe aga-member" in the body of the message.  Archives of
 this list can be found at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-member/