Fabaceae

[Saroj Kasaju]

Dear Mr. Garg,

Isn't all genera should be included in the family page, isn't it ? It would have been easy to browse.

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[J.M. Garg]

Yes, not included.

If I include all for such a large family, it will become really difficult to even load the page. 

Even with a good speed, sometimes it becomes really difficult to load the existing page. 

This I have done for lots of big families. 

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[Saroj Kasaju]

Can we make multiple pages like Fabaceae 1,2 3 ?

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[J.M. Garg]

Yes, that is possible on the current Wordpress site.

I will think of it in future, as and when time permits after completing comparative images work on Poaceae (ongoing) and Orchidaceae (not taken up as yet).  

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[Saroj Kasaju]

We can enlist alphabetically all genus.

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[J.M. Garg]

Still it will be better to keep large genera like Alysicarpus, Bauhnia, Crotalria, Indigo etc.out it (for the sake of non updation of family pages when such large genus pages are updated etc., reducing the no. of family pages like Fabaceae 1, Fabaceae 2 etc. to the bare minimum). Also we can explore possibility of makinging Subfamily pages etc. as we have done in Asteraceae (But that requires a lot of time and quite a bit of overhauling). 

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[J.M. Garg]

In fact, Asteraceae is more scientifically arranged, being a very large family. 

Pl. see.

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[Saroj Kasaju]

Yes, I understand. 

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju