Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:16:37 +0200 From: strega@split.it (Tassara) To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1300$foo@default> Subject: re: R: wild collecting
Dear Michael, Jan and all,
>> And among plant cultivators there
>> is a widespread belief that any/all cultivation IS maintaining the
>> integrity of germplasm useful for reintroduction to the wild (which we both
>> seem to agree is far-fetched at best).
>
>Yes, indeed. If habitat destruction will continue (it obviously will),
>nothing will remain to reintroduce such plants to. And even if some
>suitable habitats will be retained, the plants will no longer be what
>they used to be prior to cultivation. What can be achieved at the
>most is a seminatural ex horto cultivation. This would certainly be
>preservation but not conservation in the strict sense (your sense).
Should we really maintain the exact characteristics of the plants before
cultivation?
Apart that this would be impossible, nature has never been and will never be
static.
Even if the environment hadn't been changed all the species would have
evolved in anything else.
So I find nothing strange if our plants will adapt to cultural environment
and later they'll adapt again to natural conditions, probably with some
variations from the original species.
That's a completely natural way of surviving.
Also, I'm wondering if it is so important to conserve intact as much
germoplasm as possible: big populations of plants often result from a very
small number of specimens with a very poor genetic variability. Then they
adapt to the new environment and they create new interesting characteristics.
What would be really important would be the conservation and the
reconstruction of the natural environment, without which any conservation
wouldn't have any sense (except for our amusement).
Regards
Filippo Tassara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:08 PST