Members, If at all possible please try to put something in the picture to show approximate size, a ruler, a coin, your hand. Anything to give us a rough idea. This is one of the first questions I ask when I'm asked to ID a plant. ;)))) barb
Preferably something universally known like a golf-ball. Coins and such are likely to be confusing to those in other nations.
Good idea. A cheap pen is also a good item, reasonably constant in size, and easier to get than a golf ball. But a 15 or 30cm ruler is best of all.
From the point of my longest finger to the heel of the hand is just a little under 15 cm. I take size 6 gloves.
YES! This is one reason I find plant identification books so frustrating, it is nearly impossible to figure out the scale from the photo. Normally there is a description that tells the size, but this is never as good as a photo. For this reason I always hold the plant in my hand when taking the photo (sorry lorax). The one time I did not do this on UBC (because nobody else was doing it, so I stopped, very briefly) I got a really strange answer for a plant. The plant itself was about 2 cm in total diameter and grew about 5 mm tall, I was told it was Taraxacum (Dandelion). I still don't know what it really is. The other reason I find identification books so frustrating to use is they focus ONLY on the flower and not on the leaves or other aspects of the plant. Many plants only flower for a few weeks or less, so if the flower is not on the plant you don't have a chance. While I admit that plants are always easier to identify when they flower, if I don't know what the plant is and it is not flowering, I can just about guarantee that I also don't know when it flowers, but often times the plant may be very easy to identify using other traits. As an example Sanguinaria canadensis (Bloodroot). I think I have only seen this plant flower a few times, yet I have seen it hundreds of times in the wild as it is easy to identify from the leaf alone. The photo in two of the three plant ID books we have are so terrible that it would be impossible to identify the flowerless plant from those photos as the leaf in the photos is out of focus, and ironically the leaf is more unique (IMO) than the flower. In total we probably have 20 plant and tree books. As much as we try to identify plants from the books (and basic image search on the internet) we are usually only able to figure out about 1/3 of the plants using this method. The other 2/3's are from UBC! (BTW, THANK YOU!!!)