I am sure everyone could agree on some type of map. The point of controversy
lies with the degree of resolution of the map. This is also related to the
purpose of the map.
Are we talking about a map with a resolution roughly the size of a US
state county? This would provide a good picture of the range of a
species. It would give a "hint" of where these plants can be found,
without disclosing precise localities. This kind of map could be
compiled from existing references, and would not be overwhelmingly
difficult to create.
Another kind of map is one that pinpoints precise localities. Many
botanical distribution maps approximate this by placing "dots" on a
map of a state or county (in contrast to a shaded area of range).
Even these "dot maps" do not accurately pinpoint the exact
localities. However, computer techknowledgy could bu utilized for a
system where clicking on a dot could "zoom" in to a higher resolution
street map, or to a text description of the precise locality.
I favor the first kind of map, and strongly discourage the latter.
I think the first sort of map would be sufficient to satisfy curiosity
about a plant's range, and also gives some help to those who'd like
to find the plants in habitat. I do not see the necessity of mapping
precise localities as I've described in the second map. Those who
support this kind of map have argued they want this so they may visit
plants in habitat, and also the curious argument that if they "get
anything less" this constitutes "concealment" by a "clique" of
privileged botanists or conservationists. Truth is, compiling a map
of exact locality data would be very difficut. It would require
obtaining unpublished data from many conservation agencies. It would
demand a lot of work on their part, time that could be better spent
on conservation. These agenies are entrusted with protecting these
plants and their habitat. It will take a very compelling argument to
convince them to release localities for rare and collectible plants
to a society of collectors of these plants--especially when the final
map is to be presented on the internet. The mission of conservation
is to protect habitats and the organisms that live there. Without a
budget for guards and high fences, most rare plants in the wild are
physically protected only by their isolation from human contact.
I find it's more enjoyable to walk in the woods and find plants with
a minimum of assistance. Precise maps would aid those who don't
have the time, sure. But why rush it? Need to hit every Sarracenia
species on a 5-day trip to the Southeast? Be supportive of conservation
and those plants can be around for the next visit.
Michael Chamberland