Toronado 3800, I came across an example that might serve as an example of the divergence you are looking for. It is from a text, The Origin of Adaptations by Verne Grant published in 1963. That is when I was in grad school taking courses in evolution. Anyhow Grant sites studies done by G. Turesson in 1922. In this work Turesson found what he called races of plants growing on a island (Oeland) off the southern coast of Sweden. The island is made up largely of limestone and water retention is minimal so plants there are subject to drought conditions much of the time. Several mainland species: Atriplex campestris, Leontodon autumnalis, Rumex acetosella, Silene maritima, and Allium schoenoprasum all had representative "races" on the island. In each case the island populations had developed characteristics which made them more drought tolerant such as prostrate or dwarf growth habit, small narrow depressed thick-walled leaves. The explanation was that natural selection favored these parallel adaptations in the island conditions.

Sorry for this - I forgot the company name in the subject. Re posted. I'm sinking this one.

There is something else... I'll have to think of what it's called... that actually archives stuff on the Internet... AH yes!!! Here it is - the Wayback Machine! (Link below) Use the middle section to type the url of the site. In this case, I think you'd do the url to the KT. There is an advanced search there, too, so you can click on that and see if it lets you put in search words. I put in the url of my web site and it brought up pages from 2002 through current, although on some sites it will go back much further. I didn't start my site until 2002. Here is a link that might be useful: Wayback Machine

Wow. Some people like to read in a tone that was never meant. If people were offended by my statement... that isn't on me. Conversations online are in a sterile environment where facial features, tone and inflections are missing. Too many times people read rudeness into a comment that was never meant to be rude. And too often what one person interprets as rude is passed on to others because they assume that the first person was correct in their interpretation. I so often tell people, "If a comment seems rude to you, reread it with a different tone in your head and see if it sounds better and then assume THAT was the tone the comment was suppised to be in." The things I said were mostly point-of-fact. As I said, sort of, I 'used' to get frustrated by non-Floridians piping in until I figured out why. Since then, IF I respond to someone who does this, I politely explain the differences of growing in Florida. This doesn't change the fact that people still do it. Just the other day we had someone say, "If they can grow hydrangeas in South California, you should be able to in Florida." I knew why this person was commenting on the topic and I simply explained the differences of growing in Florida and California. Yes, Google searches often bring up GW as sources for many garden topics. I have seen this while doing searches of my own and yes this happened before Houzz, but post resurrections happen quite but more often now and by some people whose profiles show they have been members for some time, suggesting another factor is involved. The OP questioned if someone from Ohio would find a topic through a Most Recent method and I explained that not only was Most Recent an option, but the others were too. Perhaps the 'rude' part was me using the term Knee-jerk' as a descriptor of people who don't pay attention to simple details before commenting, but people who only pay attention to one aspect of topic without taking into consideration other obvious details do have a knee-jerk quality. If someone said that I was too dry, bland or too technical in how I comment on things, I wouldn't get bent out of shape because it IS a quality of mine and I came to terms with it a long time ago. When I post, I do so in a bland way. I try not to insult people, but I also don't tip-toe on eggshells worried that something I say could be taken the wrong way, because again, that isn't on me.