Random plant ids

[Linda]

The leaves on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. do not appear serrated, they appear smooth, with the addition of the s designs that may give an impression of serration, which obviously i agree with insofar as the jagged edges of nettle, but it is not there, not even to the extent of nettle, certainly not to the extent of baneberry, so i do not think you can use that as a reason why your doubly serrated hairless leaves are better represented than my serrated leaves with hairs.



You can certainly be of the opinion that they resemble what you think they resemble in a naturalistic way, but as you cannot convince me of the veracity of the resemblance you see, that opinion has as much bearing on the identification to me as my beliefs have to you. 

I did not say they were badly drawn, i simply think they are picking and choosing important traits to highlight rather than drawing a true to life representation of the plant as a whole. Can we agree it would be difficult to present a living plant in exactly the state as drawn without making some modifications to it?

I do not see the naturalistic representation of baneberry that you see. I have addressed the leaf serrations, but in my example above it is groups of three leaves, not five as drawn, so that is problematic as well, if yours can have different presentations then so can my example.  Next, why are there four racemes? I havent yet seen a plant with four coming off a stem, i show one with two, and one with 3, but it is getting crowded, and is not a match, since they are growing off the same stem, and i think, as drawn, not typical re identification of baneberry.  I already mentioned that the roots are not a match either. 

The racemes you see as side by side and curved upward i see as 3d-splayed in 4 directions with a weeping stance, ie curved up, then back down. This does match nettle racemes, even if the complexity has not been fully drawn out. It is the grouping of four which is important to my id, it is not typical for yours. Had they drawn only three, it would not have tweeked as a resemblance to me. But they drew four.



I was, however, mistaken about the stipules, the drawing i was going by had lesser quality that made me see something that i see now is not there, so i will retract my fourth reasoning. 

Nevertheless we will have to disagree because i am not convinced of the baneberry id anymore than you agree with mine. I realize i hold some preconceived notions but everyone does, whether they know it or not, and i dont have to prove they are so to present the ideas. At least i know what they are, and try to express them to show my thinking behind it.