February 2006 (UTC) 

 ::But that is part of my point: the important food species seem to be a few isolated dots and clumps in a vast sea of non-edible or non-interesting species.  Within Brassicaceae, for example, most of them seem to be in one single genus, Brassica.  So, by listing only the edible species, the table gives a somewhat distorted view of the situation.  Here is a question one may ask: is the number of food species in a family a more or less fixed fraction of the total number of species in that family?  If not, is Brassicaceae "food-rich" or "food poor", in relative terms?   05:05, 28