No idea about the fake flowers, Betty, sorry.
Teetotal, I don't think it's a problem to count children's books - I think most of us are more interested in reviews rather than numbers, so I'd suggest adding them to your tally if you're able to comment, good or bad, but otherwise not. That's my personal view, though, and I'm not claiming it's a rule of the thread.
38. The Book of Humans, by Adam Rutherford
Popular science. I loved his previous book on genetics. Was less keen on the subject here, an exploration of how human and animal behaviors overlap and differ. Started it last year and abandoned it - felt too superficial, too many stick-wielding chimps. Picked it up again last week, and this time the short chapters suited my attention span. I still think his previous book is a better read, but who could resist this footnote about Finding Nemo:
"The biologically accurate version of this film would have the father, Marlin, physically transforming into a female, and then having sex with his own son, but I guess that would be a different, possibly less popular, story."
39. Walking the Thames River Path, by Joyce Mackie. Even by the low standards of the genre (self-published accounts of the author's long walk), this isn't great - regurgitated chunks of the guidebook interspersed with "What I had for lunch' and "How I booked a B&B". The guidebook stuff I could do without, having done the walk and pored over the trail guides then, but I'm always enthralled by the mundane daily arrangements, because that's the bit that looms large when you do it.
Currently on Drood, by Dan Simmons, which is good fun. It reads as if someone decided to do a group biography of Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Count Dracula. It's an odd mash-up, gleefully over the top.