Michael Chamberland is goofy

Barry Meyers-Rice (barry@as.arizona.edu)
Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:06:21 -0700

>> I would like to see a collection of guaranteed species of Sarracenia backed
>> up by DNA checking to be used as both a reference and a source of true
>> species for collectors.

>I really cannot understand the desire for "pure" or "true" species among
>hobby growers. If we are talking about a conservation program, or about
>a research project, then this kind of purity is important. But most
>hobby growers grow CP because the plants look cool. If it looks cool,
>why sweat over whether the plant has some hybrid blood (phloem?) in it
>from a few generations back? I worry that this desire for "pure" species

First off, let all readers be advised I know Michael well, so if this sounds
at all flamey, it is not...

Michael, I'm kind of surprised at you. After all, you collect cacti...
Growing plants is *not* a logical thing---don't try to interpret it from
a logical viewpoint. Why do people want to grow Sarracenia, but don't
care a whit about Jack-in-the-Pulpit, which has many similarities? For
some halfbaked reason, CPers have gotten it into their heads that they
want to collect CPs. And most collectors are goal-oriented and a neat
goal is to have *every* Sarracenia. Especially as this is an achievable
goal. It is the mountain asking to be climbed simply because it is
there. If this sounds derisive against collectors, recall I am one
too---any such statements are wryly typed with a chuckle in my mind.
(anyone have an emoticon for that?).

>from a few generations back? I worry that this desire for "pure" species
>can only be met with absolute confidence by obtaining plants from the
>"pure" source, namely from habitat.

I do agree here. Strangely, my field trips diminished my fever to have
every species in a collection. I saw how many variants of the plants were
in the wild, and realized my puny efforts were really rather silly and
unimportant. I enjoy the plants for slightly different reasons now.

BAMR