Lindleyana

Kentucky · #1 12-12-2009, 06:57 AM

According to Ron McHatton's note in the Lindleyana section of the Dec 2009 Orchids, Lindleyana will not longer appear in Orchids and its entire future is uncertain. I hate to see this happen in the name of cost saving.

Unless I'm totally confused, Lindleyana is considered a botanical journal in which nomenclature updates and changes can be legitimately and properly published. Apparently Orchids is not such a journal. If I'm off base here, please straighten me out.

Assuming I am correct in the above paragraph, I do not want to see AOS totally removed from the loop of botanical nomenclature publication. Actually I would like to see the organization more involved. As the world economy continues to deteriorate apparently without end in sight, many current publications will cease to exist. Staying in the game should allow AOS to become a bigger player in the smaller pond. Sometime in the future electronic publication might become acceptable, but not right away. I would like AOS to continue Lindleyana.

I have always been a big supporter of retaining a monthly Orchids, but if it's content is going to continue to drift toward novice only usefulness, I change my vote. Novice content is fine, but the magazine needs a spectrum of content that includes technical matters. How much "here's how I grow 1000 orchids in a closet" can I endure. The core of AOS membership is more sophisticated than that....I hope.

I cast my vote for a larger magazine with a wide spectrum of content. If that means only 6 magazines a year (which I hate) then so be it. I would appreciate others chiming in on this with your opinions so that the powers at AOS have a better understanding of our collective opinion. Mine may not be the prevailing opinion, but that's the chance I take here.

epiphyte · #2 12-13-2009, 07:25 AM

It wouldn't cost a thing for the AOS to publish their magazine via Magcloud.

It's probably less about saving money and more about publishing articles that help sell the magazine. In other words...it's a zero sum game. Websites, on the other hand, are not a zero sum game. Not sure why they can't just publish the papers on their website.

Personally, I'm not interested in reading articles on orchid nomenclature/taxonomy. The ecological and biogeographic aspects of orchids are far more more fascinating and applicable to their culture.

Graphicgreg · #3 12-13-2009, 10:28 AM

That the future of Lindleyana is "uncertain" does not mean that it is dead. It will just no longer be part of ORCHIDS magazine. Other options are being considered, but are not yet settled upon. Online publication as well as print-on-demand options are being looked at. At its best, Lindleyana never had more than a few hundred subscribers as a standalone publication. That number does not represent the majority of AOS members and feedback suggests that readers would rather have that space devoted to articles on culture and breeding. This does not mean that we cannot or will not publish technical articles in ORCHIDS. Over the past year we have removed beginner material from the magazine and put it on the website with references in the magazine. I know for a fact that that has made many first-time members unhappy. Our current editorial direction is toward the intermediate to advanced grower.

Greg Allikas
Chair, AOS Publications Committee

Graphicgreg · #4 12-13-2009, 04:31 PM

Different strokes for different folks. In reference to the comment about having to endure "here's how I grow 1000 orchids in a closet". I just received this from an AOS member who is a judge, has chaired a region, and has extensive orchid travel and knowledge...

The recent article, A Green Dream in Texas, in the December '09 edition of orchids struck a cord with me and probably with others. Now that we are suffering from energy costs to the extent we are I suspect many of our readers, pretty much regardless of where they reside, found that the article was timely as well as a fine piece of writing. As I read it I found myself thinking, "now why didn't I think of that" and looking at my house with a critical eye on how I might retrofit it with a similar greenhouse room. For my tastes it's one of the best and most useful articles I've found in Orchids in a long time.

Kentucky · #5 12-15-2009, 06:56 AM

"That the future of Lindleyana is "uncertain" does not mean that it is dead. It will just no longer be part of ORCHIDS magazine."

Thanks for the reply (ies). Unfortunately your sentence above is nonsense. It's the equivalent of "something is not lost just because I can not find it". Psycho babble is the best description I can think come up with. If it no longer is in Orchids and you don't know where it will be, then it's dead until revived.

You obviously missed the humor in my "1000 orchids" comment. I thought the context of 1000 orchids in a closet was so outlandish that anyone would recognize it as descriptive humor. I guess I could apologize, but I won't because it's not my fault that your sense of humor is also dead along with Lindleyana.

As for associating my comment to the GH article in Dec Orchids, it might enlighten you to know that I had not even read the article when I posted about Lindleyana. If anything ticked me off it was your comment that you received a positive input from a JUDGE about the design concept. Are you trying to tell me that someone has knowledge of GH design just because he's an AOS judge? Excuse me, but there is no such rational relationship.

The lady is and should be proud of her orchid display area. Calling it a GH is an understatement. It's a tribute to interior design and an unlimited decorating budget and it's deserving of praise as such. However, the design for GH purposes is severely limited. I won't bother you with all the shortcomings of the passive heating and ventilation/cooling concepts except to say they sound nice and have limited usefulness even in a climate where a GH is not really a necessity. I'm not knocking this lady's palace just making sure you don't over rate the value of the design. There is nothing in this GH that is revolutionary to anyone with a basic knowledge of engineering and nothing that is not included in common GH design. The problem is that passive systems lack the heating and cooling capacity to provide needed control flexibility and capacity and have to be associated with positive heating and cooling systems in order to be adequate.

I guess what really convinced me that this article was intended for Good Housekeeping and not Orchids was the quote about spending at least 10 minutes a day in the GH. Once again, I commend this lady for her beautiful display area, but don't you tell me that someone is an orchid hobbyist because they spend 10 minutes a day with their plants. You cannot grow orchids in 10 minutes a day. I think they left out the part about the hired help.

I remind you again...I didn't mention the article..you did. My only point in my post was to let AOS know I am against the exclusion of Lindleyana and dismayed by the direction the magazine is taking. I'm not unaware of or unconcerned about the membership and associated financial issues with AOS. I am one of the most serious supporters of AOS and I thank all of you who are contributing your time, money, and talent in propping it up. BUT, you need to realize that the magazine is the largest return most of us get for our dues and, necessary or not, the dues go up and the magazine gets smaller and more recently more basic in content. It's the squeaky wheel concept. A whole bunch of people blamed the magazine, not the depression, for the current problems, and the mag has tilted towards novice content in the belief that new members were not being adequately served. Well...now I'm squeaking.

I was simply registering my opinion in a place that the volunteers, Trustees, and Officers could see it. I took your replies as way too defensive. It may interest you to know that I made a personal contribution to AOS this year, initiated a local society contribution, strongly supported a judging center contribution (including supporting a larger one that did not succeed), and voted favorably (as did everyone) on a Mid America contribution. I'll have to think about my desire to do those things in 2010 if I can't voice a simple opinion without incurring the reply from hell.

Graphicgreg · #6 12-15-2009, 11:32 AM

My apologies, my second reply did indeed sound smug, although it was certainly not intended to be. I wanted to point out that a reader, and not a novice either, found value in the type of articles you are condemming. Out of any 500 people, there will be 500 different opinions as to what kind of articles should make up the magazine. We're just trying to do the best we can and strike a middle balance.

Kentucky · #7 12-15-2009, 11:48 AM

Thank you and I apologize for getting so upset, but darn it you said a reader (not a novice) liked the articles I condemed. You first said the judge liked the greenhouse article that I never mentioned.

You do a great service for all of us, thank you. You are right, you will never please everyone at the same time. I am just voicing my opinion and I know they are like rear ends, everyone has one.

Keep up the good work.

K Barrett · #8 12-15-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kentucky

[snip]My only point in my post was to let AOS know I am against the exclusion of Lindleyana and dismayed by the direction the magazine is taking. I'm not unaware of or unconcerned about the membership and associated financial issues with AOS. I am one of the most serious supporters of AOS and I thank all of you who are contributing your time, money, and talent in propping it up. BUT, you need to realize that the magazine is the largest return most of us get for our dues and, necessary or not, the dues go up and the magazine gets smaller and more recently more basic in content. It's the squeaky wheel concept. A whole bunch of people blamed the magazine, not the depression, for the current problems, and the mag has tilted towards novice content in the belief that new members were not being adequately served. Well...now I'm squeaking.

I'm with Kentucky on this one. I recognize what Greg is saying about the constraints in publishing a magazine, but jeepers, I've liked the elevated articles in 'Orchids' and look forward to Lindleyana. We who are left in the club are orchid die-hards and want more information of a higher caliber. How else can I learn so I can turn ariund and teach it at my local society? Where am I supposed to get *my* education?

K Barrett

Graphicgreg · #9 12-18-2009, 11:30 AM

Thanks Kathy for your two cents, which I have always valued. I didn't just roll outta bed one morning and say, 'dang, Lindleyana needs to come out of the magazine". It was comments that people have given me about what they want to read in the magazine. Over the years, even before I was commiittee chair, I have heard people say that the don't much care for the "scientific" articles dealing with molecular study of leaf tissue and gas chromatography of Catasetinae fragrances. Now note, I did not say that people don't like the topics...they just seem to have trouble relating to a sicentific paper...it puts the avearge reader off. And so I think that scientific papers belong in scientific journals. As I said above though, we will continue to publish articles of a technical nature in the magazine if they are written for a lay person to understand. I would publish Marilyn Light's CAM program from Orchid Safari in a heartbeat if she would write it as an article. Hmmm, maybe I need to ask.

Kentucky · #10 12-18-2009, 04:15 PM

Honestly Greg I intended to drop this subject until I saw your answer to Kathy. It appears that you are saying the magazine is deliberately being dumbed down because you think that's a good idea based on some comments you have heard. You chose to cite a complex scientific example, "molecular study of leaf tissue and gas chromatography of Catasetinae fragrances." to illustrate your point. Heck I agree that most readers don't even know or care what gas chromatography is and and even I don't care what chemical gives Catasetinae their fragrances.

There is room for more practical subjects than the ones you chose to cite. The Phrag article in the current magazine is good. The GH article is purely entertainment. At least one of the goals of AOS is education. Entertainment does not appear in the list. Lindleyana which simply contains official, technically correct descriptions of new plants and information about taxonomic classification changes is not in the same complexity category as your examples.

Just in 2009 Orchid Digest contains articles on the following (and this is just a sample)(I have shortened some titles for brevity):

Jan/Feb/Mar----Breeding With Recently Described Paphiopedilums
Apr/May/June---Genus Lueddemannia, A Review and Dockrillia striolata
July/Aug/Sept---New Trends in Bulbophyllum Breeding (a fabulous article by Bill Thoms)
Oct/Nov/Dec--Part II of the Jan Paph Breeding article, another fabulous article on Kovachii hybrids by Glen Decker (a member of your committee), and a nice piece on Paph Crystelle by Frank Smith

Are you telling me that you did not want the Decker, Thoms, and Frank Smith pieces? It would positively amaze me that Glen (on your committee), Thoms (a Floridian and apparently close Bulbo ally of Frank Smith), and Frank Smith (an AOS Trustee) would not like to get their very good articles in Orchids.

There is plenty of room for articles on insecticides, miticides (explaining that insecticides don't work well on mites), fungicide classes and how to use them (including the need to rotate those newer, less toxic products that target only a single biological pathway). An article explaining polyploidy and how colchicine works to increase ploidy. How about an explanation of the toxicity labels mandated by federal law...GRAS,Caution (IV and III),Warning (II), and Danger (I). How many readers know that you can't kill a fungus once you have it. You can only prevent its spread and either wait for the leaf to grow out or cut it off. Fungicides are prophylactic products.

I classify all the above, taxonomy, breeding results, and pesticide use as useful scientific and educational information well within the ability and interest of the "average" reader. Are the readers of Orchid Digest smarter than the readers of Orchids? Hardly since they are one and the same!! Dumbing down the magazine might look like a good idea if you listen to the revolving door class of members who pass through horticultural organizations on a 2-3 year period, but the core membership is smarter and more interested in learning than you are giving them credit for. The magazine needs to be about orchids, not home decorating.