No such thing as typical meets non-observers

In trying to teach students about floral parts and the diversity of ways they get put together you quickly come to understand that there is no such thing as a typical flower.  Now, as always, patient observation and thoughtful study usually get them to a satisfactory understanding of the specimens provided.  Did you detect the flaw in this last statement?  Today's students are not patient, observant, or particularly thoughtful.  The biggest problem they had in figuring out the imperfect flowers of Begonia was reading the sign that said "two types of flowers; take one of each".  Yes, even that tiny bit of instruction was too much for some of them.  Hosta (Don't tell you-know-who her flowers were stolen for a lab!) and Aloe did not seem alike because they were different colors!  Hmm, where's that section of the lab guide that says lavender and orange flowers can't ever both be monocots.  Anthurium was just a total puzzle, and nobody in the entire class had any idea what a jack-in-the-pulpit was!  Isn't that one of the more easily recognized and common wild flowers in this area?  Doesn't anyone go outside any more?  No wonder plant identification is such a rare skill anymore; people don't even know the common things any more.  You tell them that Kohleria is a gesner, nothing registers, so you say it's in the African violet family, still nothing registers!  Not only don't they go outside, they don't bring any nature inside either!  TPP needs a drink; hold the nectar.