Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:39:28 -0700 From: chamb@u.arizona.edu To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1244$foo@default> Subject: Re: Why the imperative...
At 12:55 PM 4/22/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>With reference to ...
>>"Why the imperative of bringing new wild-sourced variation into
>cultivation?".
>
>Because, in my view, there have been plants in cultivation that
>originated from a single collection, sometimes of a single plant. Thus
>the variation is limited and can not be said to represent even a
>significant portion of what might be normal variation in the wild
>community. For conservation puposes, a wider variation (genes) would >be
a safer bet!
>
I agree with you, but I think that perpetuating plants in cultivation, and
attempting conservation of plants, are two very different ballgames!
>>Does a state of "securely in cultivation" truly exist?
>
>It obviously depends on the efinition of "secure". I would propose that
>we CP growers, especially working through the coordination of the CP
>societies, would find it fairly easy to agree which species were we
>thought were securely in cultivation. But clearly such a status as
>"secure" is subjective until people create criteria.
I tend to think that relatively few CP species are "secure" in cultivation.
A good number are not in cultivation at all (and I do not think collecting
restrictions are responsible for this).
Suppose we look at the plant offerings from a number of CP nurseries which
do business only in artificially propagated material (or even plants
sustainably collected from their property). If a species is offered from
several different nurseries, and is consistently sold for a number of
years, then that could be a measure of "security" in cultivation. It shows
an ongoing popular interest in the plants--people want to grow them. It
shows that the plants can be propagated to meet the demand. And it
indicates the plants ARE being disseminated to other collectors (no
guarantee they are keeping them alive though). How many plants will fit
the criteria? VFT, Cephalotus, Darlingtonia, Byblis liniflora, probably
all the "pure" Sarracenia spp., +/- a dozen or so each of species of
Pinguicula and Utricularia, maybe a few more of Drosera. I won't even
guess on Nepenthes with all the hybrids floating around. As a guess, a
good number of the popular species, but only a small fraction of CP species
total (what about aquatic Utricularia?) And this is not even accounting
for additional variants of species.
I think that restrictions on collecting plants are not a limiting factor
here (collecting seeds can often be done legally). Plants HAVE been
collected, and even the most rare and protected species get smuggled out;
have been even more in the past. The plant matter IS being attempted in
cultivation, and the attempts are often failures... so more collecting is
needed...
Some plants are not being attempted in cultivation because there is not
enough interest [aquatic utrics, anyone?]. How can these become secure in
cultivation if there is little interest in growing them in the first place?
Consider Stylidium. Allen Lowrie popularized these plants a few years ago
and offered them for sale. They acquired a marginal popularity among CP
growers. How may of ya'll still grow Stylidium? Alright, this is not the
best example because Stylidium is not a CP, but who else would be growing
them? I'm just curious.
> For the UK National Collections, the Collection Owners
>are required to have a goal of expanding their collections (through
>legal means).
I do not know much about the UK National Collections, and I'd be interested
in learning more, seeing their bylaws (publish something in CPN, someone?).
In the USA, CP growing is largely a personal hobby. No one is monitoring
how many grow Utricularia resupinata or Drosera linearis. There is no
accountability and no responsibility (this appeals to the libertarian types
[who I know are on this list, watching!] :-) We don't know if something is
slipping out of cultivation. We don't know what species are holding their
own in cultivation only by way of steady transfusions from the wild (the
two spp. I just named, very likely).
>this must translate
>as having a goal to eventually include all known species and variants,
>hybrids, cultivars, etc. (this is limited by what exactly each national
>Collection comprises - for example some4 Naqtional Collections only
>collect species while others only cultivars, and so on ...).
I just think there are too few people with the interest, time, and space to
grow all these plants. Fewer still that can maintain them over an extended
period. I think there are considerable challenges in just keeping many
species going in cultivation, let alone doing real conservation. The
subject of conservation would require a whole other post.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST