PROPOSAL FOR CREATION OF A PUBLIC HORTICULTURAL DATABASE. [Last modified: 1994-09-25. Contact: rusin@math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin)] This proposal originates in response to the flow of traffic in the newsgroup rec.gardens. Many of the posts ask questions about specific ornamental plants -- where can one get seeds, when should it flower, how much light does it require, will it fit my landscape, and so on. It seems to me that such data could be distributed more easily than with the heavy network load required by posting with worldwide distribution. I propose that we keep a large collection of reasonably short articles in one place for public retrieval. This article will contain details of the proposal in sections: I. Description of intended file structure II. Expected form of user interaction III. Template for individual articles IV. Author responsibilities V. "Editor" (that's me) responsibilities and disclaimers VI. Initial list of suggested genera VII. Proposed timetable for implementation Please forward your comments to me at rusin@math.niu.edu. ============================================================================== ===================PROPOSAL DETAILS FOLLOW==================================== ============================================================================== I. Description of intended file structure I would like to see a collection of text files in a publicly accessible location, one file for each kind of plant, each file listing the aspects of that plant most important to (flower) gardeners. I envision having many gardeners with internet access write the separate articles; having users retrieve the articles via ftp, gopher, WWW, or other tools; and having an editor or editorial board reconcile conflicting opinions, users' new suggestions, and so on. In this section of the proposal I will make explicit what the collection of files would look like. Please note that this section describes a general goal which is unlikely ever to be met. I think there would be value even to preliminary coverage of, say, the most common hundred or so cultivated flowers. First I need to clarify the phrase "kind of plants". While I would be happy to extend this concept, if successful, to all vascular plants, I would at first limit the project to plants of interest to people maintaining ornamental gardens. Thus it would be my intention to _exclude_: ferns and allies (i.e., non-seed-bearing plants) gymnosperms -- conifers etc. (i.e., non-flowering plants) common grasses (but possibly allowing, say, pampas grass) other plants not noted for their flowers (including hedges, etc.) useful plants (not usually grown for their flowers) such as vegetables, nuts, fruits, berries, and herbs aquatic plants (or do water-lily growers say they "garden"?) large trees (but possibly covering, say, saucer magnolias) houseplants (unless, say, orchid fans will contribute enough articles) tropical plants (with apologies to gardeners in the tropics) weeds (whatever the readers consider them to be) I prefer to think of this list as providing a focus of priorities, rather than being a barrier to input and participation. Also, we need to clarify fineness as well as scope of coverage. Taxonomy is a well-established, orderly discipline applied to a dynamic and disorderly universe; a gardener's image of a "kind" of plant need not uniformly correspond to a genus, species, or cultivar. I would like to see a sliding scale of specificity related to public interest in the plants in question: articles might cover anything from a family down to a variety. I would expect that in general each article would cover plants with similar horticultural requirements; likely these would be _genera_ in most cases. However, I would like to include a collection of survey articles, one for each generally recognized family of vascular plants. I would guess that many articles would be short, if there are no species in the family considered interesting to most gardeners. At least this would provide a comprehensive introduction to the genera. (Some families with hundreds of genera would likely require subdivision into separate articles on the tribes or subfamilies. Asteraceae comes to mind...) I note there are some 15 000 recognized genera of plants, but that the total number of genera represented in common catalogs (Burpee, White Flower Farms, etc.) is perhaps 500. If later polling shows, say 2000 genera actually represented in people's gardens, and if we add 500 articles on supra-generic taxa and perhaps 1000 on sub-generic groups, then we would have a reasonably comprehensive introduction to horticulture in three or four thousand files. I think that from a user's perspective, the files are most useful if they are not overly long - say a few screenfuls of data (5K max). (Indeed, if they can be printed out on two sides of a sheet of notebook paper, a gardener can easily tailor a notebook of information to their own needs.) Thus in final form, the database would be no more than 20 Meg long. Additional files would enhance the value of the data. I would like to add an index, crosslisting the name of each file with both the scientific and common names of plants mentioned in the file. Some users may appreciate some hierarchical files describing taxonomy. Links to other network gardening resources would be useful. Finally, pictures (GIF or JPEG files) of the plants--seedlings, mature plant, flower closeup, seeds-- would undoubtedly improve usability; this of course would greatly increase memory requirements (by roughly an order of magnitude). Make my day: suggest a use for sound files (.au files, say). For the present time I am willing to make this directory available for this purpose; should memory space or connection lines become insufficient, a more permanent home would be needed. Once the database becomes stable, one might envision distribution on a CDROM (how would we fill 600Meg? :-)) ============================================================================== II. Expected form of user interaction In this section I'd like to describe the ways a typical person would use the database. As I see it there are several times the gardener leaves the dirt and looks for human opinion. First, the gardener plans. Well, we're supposed to plan, anyway. As often as not the planning starts when visiting another's garden or when looking at catalogs. Once we have a plant in mind, we need to establish its suitability for us. Many questions on the net ask, "will this grow here?"; "does this plant require a lot of care?"; "what is the catalog not saying about this plant?" With luck, the plant in question will already be discussed in an article here. The user can consult the index, giving what name he or she has for the plant, and find the name of the file discussing the plant. It should then be a quick matter to download or read the file and find this basic information. Since the files would ideally be written following a common template, the gardener can compare to the files on other plants with which they are already familiar, and observe any important differences. I would hope in particular that the authors of articles would feel free to say explicitly the negative aspects of a plant often omitted from the catalog (For example, a pleasant description of Physostegia [obedient plant] would not convey the reality that the plant really takes over any available fertile soil. - I have found it quite _disobedient_!) By "download" I mean here that the user can retrieve the file with common network tools. FTP to this directory will work. Users with only lesser access to the net can retrieve the file using an email- -to-ftp gateway. Users with better connections can use gopher or WWW. (Actually I don't have a WWW server available yet, and I would not expect authors to create hypertext documents anyway; but I would like to respect the popularity of WWW links.) One admissible gopher data type is a database search, which I think one could attach to the index file. Another type of planning would _not_ be particularly easy with this data. This is for questions which ask, "What kind of plant is a good choice here?" Questions which don't presume a specific kind of plant at the outset would require a laborious search through many files, unless we additionally index the articles by the various data fields in the template. I am reluctant to consider this anyway, since different articles may have different authors, and so are likely to report data unevenly. Likewise I am loathe to consider a plant-identification database ("What plant is this I have?") since proper identification often turns on familiarity with technical jargon or microscopic properties. Once the gardener includes a plant in the garden, he or she often has more questions, along the lines of "Is this normal?", or, "What can I do about this situation?". Again, the user could consult the article relevant to this plant. If the article is well written, perhaps the user's question will be answered there; a FAQ within a file would not be unreasonable. Now, if the user finds the data there insufficient, or at odds with his/her experience, it seems to me that the user could add something to the article based on their own specimen. I would suggest that the articles themselves not be world-writable, but that the user be encouraged to write corrections or additions to the editor (=moderator, organizer, or whatever) or communicate directly with the author of the article. (Authors would indicate if they're willing to be contacted or not.) Especially at first I would imagine many users would think, "I could have written better information than that!" (Especially the few I would personally write to prime the pump!) If this encourages users to improve the articles, I say, so much the better. Later, the articles may become more stable; I would be wiling to entertain the idea of a comprehensive re-write of many of the articles after, say, two years. I am not a master gardener nor, I imagine, are most readers of rec.gardens. The level of discussion I would expect to house in these files ought to be just a little above what one ever gets in USENET: helpful information based on some research and experience, which is however short of authoritative. Thus this database is not a replacement for other electronic, printed, or privately held information; it is only a supplement -- a chance to collect a great deal of (perhaps basic) information in one place. I try not to get too idealistic, but I honestly believe gardeners can cooperate to write helpful articles about most garden plants. My experience in rec.gardens is that flames are few and helpful spirits are common. ============================================================================== III. Template for individual articles I expect the index file can simply be a list of lines containing a filename, a scientific name, and one or more common names; users could quickly grep or do a wordsearch in their favorite editor to seek out the files relevant to their plants. Ditto for an index to other files (e.g. pictures). The articles on the families could resemble the articles on individual plant "kinds", though much of the information would be less specific if the family includes lots of genera and species. However, I would hope that the family files could be more comprehensive in their taxonomic sections, so that all genera get (at least) mentioned in at least one file. The real "guts" of the database would be in the plant files. Here is a template of the kind of data I would ask authors to contribute. Header data: Coverage (e.g. genus name), author (with .address), modification date. Author may want to indicate level of experience with the topic, and his or her willingness to answer user questions directly. Author's USDA zone might be appropriate if writing from experience. General plant description: Just like the flower catalogs'. (Possibly including a phenotype description sufficient to distinguish it from related plants). Editor's comments, if necessary to relate to other files. Taxonomic data: Scientific name; supra- and sub-taxa (possibly close sibling taxa too); (I would skip detailed authority files, synonymy, etc.) Pointers to which other such taxa are covered in database. Common name(s). Ecological data: Native habitat. Sunlight, soil, water, and nutrient needs. Beneficial and/or harmful insects of note. Horticultural data: (probably the longest part of the article.) Why grow it? (for cutting flower, window-box, scents, flowering time, color -- whatever is unusual.) What to watch out for? (invasiveness, hardiness, fussiness, common diseases or other problems). Readers are most likely to appreciate the information repressed in garden catalogs! Cultivation -- germination rates, transplanting hints, bedding companions etc. Growth pattern - what's the plant up to each month? Suppliers: I am neutral on the question of suggesting _preferred_ providers. Perhaps an indication of cost? References: Important: cite any references you quote directly. Helpful books. Cultivation societies. Internet newsgroups, mailing lists, FAQ lists, etc. Expert willing to help out. Pointers to picture files of interest. ============================================================================== IV. Author responsibilities The basic premise of this database is that much helpful information is available from net gardeners, and that many of them would be willing to share this information if it wouldn't take much of their time. Still, I would like authors to be clear on their responsibilities so that the database can be a quality tool. Let me repeat some of the comments I have made earlier. First, authorship of an article need _not_ imply particular scholarly expertise with the subject, but ought to imply either some personal experience with the plants or at least an hour or two spent in a library, conservatory, or similar resource center. For the covering article on families, it might be particularly helpful to have input from those with taxonomic training, but I would hope they would have enough gardening sense to be able to advise me which genera include plants likely to be of interest to gardeners. Secondly, authors should be open to the idea of seeing additions to their articles later, as other gardeners clarify and augment their comments. My expectation is that the files would read, for example, DIANTHUS...by J. Doe (doe@dept.site.country)... This genus includes carnations... [S. Smith (smith@a.b.c) notes: these tend to become rabbit fodder; consider caging the plants if you live in bunny country] ... and pinks... My hope is that, when the article becomes too cluttered to read in this way, the original author would consider melding the comments into a nice rewrite. I will not address the question of attribution at this time. Who will write about which plants? I believe the readership of rec.gardens numbers in the tens of thousands. If we could just get as many people to write an article here as post to rec.gardens in a _single day_, then we could have a nice basis for the project. If just one reader in ten chooses to participate, we can have a rather complete database with each author writing just one or two articles. There's no particular rush, just as long as those who say they'll write, really write (within, say, two months). The real problem of course is finding an efficient matching. Probably lots of people can write something sensible about Tulipa, but fewer have even heard of Parthenium integrifolium. I predict there would be lots of people volunteering to write about "any two of the following 50 genera in my garden", and so immediately I could find authors for perhaps several hundred plants. This might be a good start just as is, but if a few kind souls say "tell me what's left and I'll look it up and summarize what I found out", that may go far to filling in the gaps. (I might be able to identify another few hundred commonly-grown plants, to use as suggestions.) Once the first wave of volunteers have finished, and their work publicized, there ought to be a new round of authors who write, "I just noticed no one wrote about..." and offer to fill the gap. Others might at least write in with suggestions of plants they'd like to hear about. Eventually (perhaps within 2 years) this too should settle down and we'd have an equilibrium between supply and demand of articles on garden plant types. In many cases, authors will find that the taxon they've agreed to write about include too wide a range of plants. For example, there are, I believe, some 1500 species within the genus Viola; there are some significant differences between herbaceous peony species and tree peony species. I would be happy to accept an author's recommendation that separate articles on smaller taxa be written -- especially if the same author agrees to write them! I have mentioned the possibility of including pictures of plants. There are obstacles, not the least of which are lack of memory space and lack of a scanner. But if we can circumvent these, and if there is sufficient demand, I'd be happy to invite authors to submit pictures of the plants they discuss. Copyright data: The goal is to create a public database; needs of users will, in general, supersede desires of authors. Authors should expect files to be distributed under terms similar to GNU "copyleft". Database as a whole will be stamped with a (c) Copyright to protect its integrity. While I try to be scrupulous about maintaining privacy, persons who make comment or submissions by email and wish not to have them made public should bracket them with the phrase [PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE]. I am NOT of the opinion that this database would be considered "fair use" of previously copyrighted work; please do not quote extensively from such material unless you obtain permission from its authors. (Note: I have not noticed that vendors' catalogues are copyrighted.) ============================================================================== V. "Editor" (that's me) responsibilities and disclaimers I'm not sure why I'm getting into this, but here goes... As coordinator of this project, I intend to do the following. (done) Form basic proposal for construction of database (this document!) (done) Arrange for computer resources, at least for a preliminary version. (part) Prepare a listing of genera, ranked so as to suggest a workable ordering of articles needing to be written. (begun) Solicit volunteer authors to write on genera, species, etc. Match volunteers with topics Review submissions for editorial uniformity (a little) Pester tardy contributors Invoke a review committee to consider project improvements. Maintain files: reconcile alternate articles, rebuttals, etc. Serve as contact person for database users. I do _not_ consider it my responsibility to verify or testify to the correctness of the data. This is a public project provided for free. You get what you pay for! Count me as an experienced amateur gardener. I could write articles for a few species, but I think a better contribution for me personally might be to organize such a project and ask others to write. Perhaps I should stress again that I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel, but if others feel such a collection of public files would be useful, and are willing to help write them, I'll offer to coordinate the effort. ============================================================================== VI. Initial list of suggested genera I would ask authors to write about the genera I think gardeners are most likely to plant. Given no other guidance I scanned about 30 popular seed and plant catalogs to see which genera showed up in which catalogs. Based on this data I present about 400 popular genera divided into 4 groups indicating their frequency. I would probably suggest we write about the genera in the first group first, then expand into other groups as energy levels persist. I realize this is a pretty silly and arbitrary way to create this list, but every other way is too. I'm always open to expansion if labor can keep pace with dreams. Anyone reading this can suggest more genera to start with if s/he volunteers to get the writing done. First quartile - At least one out of every three catalogs in my hand contained at least one species in each of these genera: Achillea Ajuga Allium Althaea Alyssum Anemone Antirrhinum Aquilegia Artemesia Asclepias Aster Astilbe Begonia Buddleia Caladium Campanula Campsis Canna Celosia Centaurea Ceratostigma Cercis Chrysanthemum Clematis Coleus Convallaria Coreopsis Coronilla Cosmos Crocus Dahlia Delphinium Dianthus Dicentra Digitalis Echinacea Euonymus Freesia Gaillardia Geranium Gladiolus Gypsophila Helianthus Helichrysum Hemerocallis Heuchera Hibiscus Hosta Hyacinthus Hydrangea Iberis Impatiens Ipomoea Iris Kniphofia Lathyrus Lavandula Liatris Lilium Limonium Linum Lobelia Lobularia Lonicera Lupinus Monarda Myosotis Narcissus Oenothera Paeonia Papaver Pelargonium Phlox Portulaca Potentilla Primula Pyretheum Ranunculus Rhododendron Rosa Rudbeckia Salvia Scabiosa Sedum Sempervivum Syringa Tagetes Thymus Tropaeolum Tulipa Verbena Veronica Viburnum Vinca Viola Weigela Wisteria Yucca Zinnia Second quartile - showed up frequently: Acidanthera Agastache Ageratum Alchemilla Amaranthus Amelanchier Anthemis Arabis Arisaema Armeria Aruncus Berberis Bergenia Browallia Brunnera Calendula Callistephus Camassia Caryopteris Catharanthus Celastris Centranthus Cheiranthus Chinodoxa Clarkia Cleome Colcasia Colchicum Cotinus Crocosmia Dictamnus Dimorphoteca Echinops Elaeagnus Eranthis Eremurus Erigeron Eryngium Erythronium Eschscholzia Eupatorium Euphorbia Eustoma Filipendula Forsythia Frittilaria Galanthus Galium Gazania Gerbera Geum Gomphrena Heliopsis Helleborus Hypericum Ixia Ixiolirion Kalmia Kochia Laburnum Lagerstroemia Lamium Lavatera Leucojum Ligularia Liriope Lunaria Lychnis Magnolia Malva Matricaria Matthiola Mertensia Mirabilis Muscari Nepeta Nicotiana Nierembergia Nigella Oxalis Penstemon Perovskia Petunia Philadelphis Physalis Physocarpos Physostegia Platycodon Polianthes Polygonum Prunus Pulmonaria Ricinus Ruta Salix Saponaria Satureja Scilla Sidalcea Solidago Spirea Stachys Stokesia Tithonia Tradescantia Tricyrtiis Triteleia Trollius Xeranthemum Zantedeschia Third quartile: less frequent Abutilon Achimenes Aconitum Alstroemeria Ammi Amsonia Angelica Arctotis Arenaria Armoracia Asarum Asperula Aubrieta Babiana Baptisia Belamcanda Bellis Bletilla Boltonia Borago Brachycome Brodiae Calamintha Calliopsis Callirhoe Calluna Carthamus Catananche Cerastium Childanthus Chrysogonum Cineraria Clethra Cobaea Cotoneasater Craspedia Cyclamen Cyclamineus Delosperma Diervilla Dodecatheon Doronicum Erica Eucalyptus Franklinia Gillia Helenium Helianthemum Heliotropium Helipterum Hesperis Hypoestes Hyssopus Incarvillea Ismene Kerria Latifolium Layia Levisicum Linaria Lycoris Lysimachia Lythrum Marrubium Melampodium Melissa Mesembryanthemum Mimosa Molucella Myrrhis Nemophilia Nolana Ornithogalum Orostachys Oxydendrum Pardancanda Petalostemum Phacelia Phaseolus Polemonium Polygonatum Puschkinia Pyracantha Ratibida Reseda Rodgersia Rumex Salpiglossis Santolina Sanvitalia Schizanthus Senecio Sesamum Silene Silphium Sparaxis Symphoricarpos Tamarix Tanacetum Thalictrum Thermopsis Thunbergia Tigridia Torenia Tritonia Veronicastrum Zephyranthes Fourth quartile: happened to be in only one of my catalogs (I think) Abelmoschus Adenophra Adonis Aethionema Agapanthus Agrostemma Ammobium Ampelopsis Antennaria Aralia Aronia Arum Bignonia Calceolaria Callicarpa Calycanthus Caratostigma Castilleja Ceanothus Cephalanthus Chelone Chiastophyllum Chionanthus Cichorium Cimicifuga Cirsium Clivia Convovulvus Crambe Cynoglossum Cyperus Daphne Draba Emilia Epimedium Eritrichium Eucomis Exacum Fothergilla Gillenia Gloriosa Gossypium Heucherella Homeria Hyacinthella Hydrastis Hydrophyllum Ipheion Ipomopsis Itea Koelreuteria Lamiastrum Lantana Leontopodium Lotus Machaeranthera Macleaya Malcomia Martynia Meconopsis Mimulus Momordica Nemesia Optunia Oxypetalum Parthenium Pieris Podophyllum Prunella Pycnanthemum Sagina Sanguinaria Sceavola Schizostylis Smilacina Solunus Sprekelia Steirodiscus Tiarella Trachymene Trifolium Trillium Tulbaghia Valeriana Verbascum Waldsteinia Zizia ============================================================================== VII. Proposed timetable for implementation I think it is too much to ask gardeners to spend time at the computer during peak flowering season! I hope this project will start with enthusiasm; if it soon wanes, I will be content to let it grow during the winter and to let people check its usefulness during '95. If at the end of that year many people are pleased, then that winter we can turn with a will toward pulling together the loose threads, and have a more or less finished product available before planting season, 1996. Specifically I will try to estimate some future target dates as follows: 94.9.22 - announce project over rec.gardens. Seek input and first round of volunteer authors (to write about common genera) 94.sep - assign duties for first articles. 94.oct - editorial revision of first articles. publication of list of most valued garden genera. begin negotiations for a network home. 94.11.1 - announce availability of "alpha-test"-version database (~100 files) request for authors of articles on "plant types" (=genera?) 94.nov - attempt matching of volunteers with topics 95.1.15 - deadline for articles for "version 1.0" of database 95.jan,feb - editorial revision of genus articles 95.2.15 - announce availability of first draft of database; seek comments 95.spring - consider incoming suggestions; edit files. form advisory committee to consider new directions. 95.summer - monitor helpfulness of database to '95 gardeners 95.fall - announce need for more volunteers to fill obvious gaps 95-6.winter - writing of further reports; continued improvements of existing files. 96.feb - announce steady-state version of database seek permanent home and monitors for data records. I hope that when this is all said and done, we will have demonstrated the possibilities of communal effort through the internet, and given ourselves a nice gift of gardening wisdom. Dave Rusin rusin@math.niu.edu .