Maize newsgroup

[Mike Folsom]

In article <Aug.21.16.52.43.1992.10089 at genbank.bio.net> kristoff at genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes:
   (((Tony's stuff deleted ---)))
>
>Tony,
>
>	I just sent out a call for discussion on bionet.maize.
>Perhaps we should begin by determining whether bionet.maize
>discussions should just start out on the existing bionet.plants or, if
>the discussion demonstrates a lot of interest, perhaps have
>bionet.maize be a subset, i.e., bionet.plants.maize, since we did
>mention previously that significant subsets of plant biology would be
>spun off into hierarchies.
>
>	I will be away until 1 Sept. so I'll let you guys duke it out
>on this one here and will read the outcome when I get back.
>
>				Sincerely,
>
>				Dave Kristofferson
>				GenBank Manager
>
>				kristoff at genbank.bio.net


Re: the "duke it out" - I assume Dave meant that metaphorically.  ;-)

Anyway, to the buisness at hand.

As an unabashed spliter I say go for it!  I like the idea of putting it 
under the bionet.plants hiearchy so bionet.plants.maize looks good to
me.  

Now, why do I think that we should create a new group instead of 
carrying the "traffic" on bionet.plants?  

1) Having a group that exists specifically for corn is different 
 than carrying traffic on bionet.plants.  While I believe that 
 creating bionet.plants.maize might get more people * on the system *
 I doubt saying that we are talking about corn, among other things, 
 in an electronic discussion group will.  This group could have
 a huge draw - agronomists, botanists, geneticists, e.t.c.  Their
 presence could improve the usefulness of the whole bionet hiearchy 
 and could lead to further growth - i.e. groups on soybean, wheat,
 e.t.c. - again bringing more people into the system.

2) It seems to me that the arabadopsis group is fairly active.  I 
 see no reason why bionet.plants.maize should not be at least as 
 active as the arabadopsis group.  In fact, by all rights, it should
 be more active.  There are many more people working on corn than
 there are working on arabadopsis.    

3) Creating a group on maize could have other benefits.  It could 
 serve as a common ground for those interested in a range of 
 topics, from it molecular biology to its evolution.  It would 
 be real neat if everybody from anthropologists to classical plant
 breaders and hard core gene jockies would participate in such a group.

A few topics that might be included (totally off-the-cuff) -

  the early history and "civilization" of maize
      early plant ancestors
      man's intervention in the "evolution" of maize
      spread of maize around the world and its social implication
    
  improvement in maize
      development of new cultivars via plant breeding and techniques
         of biotechnology  
      stabilization of heterosis in hybrids via movement of apomixis 
         into maize

  reproductive biology of maize
      techniques of embryo sac and sperm cell isolation - their 
          relevance to cultivar development

  pathology, physiology, ecology, e.t.c -

All for now .........

Michael


P.S. - all spelling mistakes are mine, mine, mine!  The VP can't have 
one of 'em!