Re: Re: Genetic diversity

dave evans (T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU)
Wed, 11 Dec 96 18:21 EST

> From: "Michael.Chamberland" <23274MJC@MSU.EDU>
>
> Dave, I assume you accidentally left off the smilely :-)

No, I'm serious.

> The plants that die contain part of the gene variation. Those that
> survive represent a subset of the original diversity, so genetic
> diversity is lost. What has occurred is a selection for plants
> that do well in cultivation. Offspring get traded around between
> collectors and the end result is strong selection for whatever is
> similar in cultivation practices. An easy-to-grow cultivar is
> the product of the selection.

Yes, I see where you're taking this. But this will only be true
for plants which are large and so don't get any sexual reproduction.
Like Nepenthes. Anyway, there's a way around that too... Just
mail someone pollen, if you can (Andrew, I sent the pollen to you).
Truely, I think you're underestimating genetic diversity. What I
mean to say is each person will manage to keep their easily grown
plants for their own selective conditions thereby *increasing*
the overall genetic diversity. In this way, so long as sexual
reproduction is kept fairly common, my plants will be more different
than your plants, while plants growing wild near each other will be
more similar, overall. That's an increase in diversity, right?
Keep in mind that evolution doesn't just happen, something must
start killing off what would normally be a viable (and valuable) trait
to make room for what is new.

Dave Evans