09-10-2016, 09:40 AM
Anton,
I think I wasn't clear. The botanical folios *each* show a group of plants. They are already grouped by occuring naturally in proximity, and having similar form and purpose, though the classifications are only coincidentally those of our own taxonomic classifications.
So the raison d'etre for those groups, perhaps, is not *only* that the plants have similar forms, uses, and occur naturally in proximity but *also* that each has been informed by one of those habitual "grouping-words" mentioned by Amar and Lev.
Unfortunately those authors give only three examples in their paper.
I think I wasn't clear. The botanical folios *each* show a group of plants. They are already grouped by occuring naturally in proximity, and having similar form and purpose, though the classifications are only coincidentally those of our own taxonomic classifications.
So the raison d'etre for those groups, perhaps, is not *only* that the plants have similar forms, uses, and occur naturally in proximity but *also* that each has been informed by one of those habitual "grouping-words" mentioned by Amar and Lev.
Unfortunately those authors give only three examples in their paper.