[APD] Aquatic vs Aquarium Plants

["Stephan Mifsud" <labmdp at waldonet_net.mt>]

Steve Pushak  said: 'The "definition" of aquatic plant is made entirely
based upon arbitrary
classification for some other purpose; there is no hard biological
distinction.'

This is something which bothers me. I think we are constantly using the term
'aquatic-plants' instead of 'aquarium-plants'. There ARE distinct biological
characterics that are only found in aquatic plants. A truely aquatic plant
grows in water, in Nature, and the aquatic habitat is essential for it to
complete its life cycle. This defenition rules out marsh plants, rheophytes
and other water-side plants such as Samolus, Saururus, Anubias and a host of
other plants which we routinely grow in aquariums.
Many of the latter live in places which are routinely flooded so they can
adapt to life in/under water, which is why they are suitable for aquariums.
They live naturally in such conditions because they can, not because they
need to, so why call them aquatic? We frequently see humans and dogs in the
sea but that does not make them marine mammals.

Try convincing a botanist that 'lawn grass' is aquatic just because you have
grown it in an aquarium!

regards
Stephan
Malta


_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants