also....
>Now if an area were to be "developed" (blatant euphemism if you ask me)
>and all the plants were destined to oblivion, then any plants collected
>from the area are last reservoirs of the gene pool, and should be
>collected. (Isn't this the case with S. flava atropurpurea?)
Indeed. The image of hurriedly collecting what few plants you can---to grant
them life while the evil bulldozer chomps at the habitat---is attractive
especially since it is morally unambiguous to collect in that case. But most
of the time the destruction happens so fast you either know about it only
afterwards, or never suspect it before it happens. The more interesting
case is when the evil urge comes upon you when you walk among plants of
uncertain future. Perhaps it is a realty sign, or some logging, or land
reclamation (development), or agriculture, but whatever it is, it gives you
a nervous feeling. Will these plants be here next year, or next week? Is the
land about to be bought by a developer or environmental concern? Is this
Nature Conservancy land? That red flagging over there---is that marking some
area for development, or is that someone's research plot?
The distinction between good forces and the bad forces become blurred. I
recall one place I visited in S.Carolina (National Forest land) where
the eye of Hurricane Hugo came ashore---80% deforestation. On one side of
the forest road were the fallen remains and standing deadwood of what had
been a forest. The _Sarracenia_ etc. were merrily poking out from under
all the dead trees, obviously thriving and not adversely affected by the
fires that the rangers had set at times to burn the deadwood. On the
other side of the road, the rangers had brought in trucks and machinery
to remove the wood (wood=money). That side of the road looked like razed
brazilian rainforest. All that was left were deep muddy ruts and some
grasses. Like I said, wood=money, but _Sarracenia_=...., uh,...wood=money.
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to have the answers. But the questions
fascinate me.
>I don't know Barry, some people might still be interested in Proboscidea.
>I don't think it has ever been implicated as being a possible carnivore,
>but it is an interesting gladular plant with pretty flowers and fruit, and
>it is in the "possibly carnivorous" family Martinyaceae (or whatever you
Sure, they may be interested in it, but it doesn't belong in the ICPS seedbank.
Soon, you'd have to start stocking _Desmodium_, _Mimosa_, _Stylidium_, then
perhaps _Dischidia_ (sp?), and so on.
>true cp. (I still think having _Capsella bursera-pastoris_ in the bank is
>a joke
You do not chuckle alone!
Barzai