Calif. Flora - Jepson or Munz?

Hal Hawthorne halh at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jun 17 03:12:01 EST 1995


In <3rqcqp$399 at peach.america.net> Scott Ranger <ranger at america.net>
writes: 
>
>I cut my teeth on Munz!  It is a comprehensive flora, especially with
the 
>supplement from 1973.  Current printings include the flora and 
>supplement.  Many taxonomic and nomenclatural changes have taken place

>since 1968 and 1973, so any work using Munz would require a double
check 
>with more recent works.  That would be the great value of the new
Jepson 
>flora.  The Jepson folks have asked for errors in the first printing
so 
>that they may be corrected in the next, but that any corrections 
>requiring page changes would not be considered until a new revision. 
The 
>scuttlebut is that the book was rushed to press and is full of small 
>problems.  Since it is a work of a committee, it is going to be uneven
in 
>quality across the families.  Munz used lots of folks to deal with 
>complex genera and species, so his coverage can be uneven as well.
>
>If you are seriously interested in the California flora, you need both

>books.
>
   This is my $.02:


     The differences I've seen between the two books are in the family
arrangement.  The Jepson Manual is arranged alphabetically, whereas the
Munz follows a taxanomic order, grouping similar families together in
the book.  

     Also, the Jepson Manual is stronger in pictures; the Munz (while
still weighing a hefty bit) is smaller in size than the Jepson.


Enjoy!  This has been a FANTASTIC year for California wildflowers!

Lara
Lara at slip.net




More information about the Plantbio mailing list