It's disturbing that a high-priced "scholarly" book by people who call themselves botanists has so many of the Linnaean names incorrectly spelled.
I've only looked at four pages so far and there are already two botanical names spelled wrong:
I've noticed that when they can't identify a plant, the authors resort to saying it's a combination of two plants.
Now, it is possible that some VMS plants are combinations (anything's possible at this point), but if that's so, then how can the authors be so definite about WHICH plants were combined when there are so many different possible combinations of stems, leaves, roots, etc.? And if there are combination plants, then how do they know the ones they identified as single plants are not also combinations of plants that simply look on the surface like single plants?
I've only looked at four pages so far and there are already two botanical names spelled wrong:
- Saliva hispanica (this should be Salvia hispanica. Salvia is a very common species—a botanist SHOULD be able to spell this correctly without thinking).
- Lithophramga affine (this should be Lithophragma affine which, by the way, is a California plant that does not grow in Mesoamerican).
I've noticed that when they can't identify a plant, the authors resort to saying it's a combination of two plants.
Now, it is possible that some VMS plants are combinations (anything's possible at this point), but if that's so, then how can the authors be so definite about WHICH plants were combined when there are so many different possible combinations of stems, leaves, roots, etc.? And if there are combination plants, then how do they know the ones they identified as single plants are not also combinations of plants that simply look on the surface like single plants?