> I hope someone can step in an post some basic genetics so we can
> start this discussion on a sound footing.
I do not know if I can really fulfil your sound footing criteria but
would like to waste some bandwidth on the subject.
I get the impression that an unnatural bias is tried to be created
between sound scientists doing only the right things to properly
study, conserve, and describe cps (and a few other less interesting
phenomena) and evil clueless amateurs who only collect, destroy, and
confuse the same items. However, I know enough examples each of
scientists performing rather poorly (and not only because of short
funds!) and amateurs who have contributed a lot to the benefit of us
all. In the end we all depend on mutual co-operation, so please stop
dividing mankind by these artificial criteria.
As to genetic diversity, the process of evolution (mutation rate,
selective pressure) does not stop in cultivation. Population size
does mainly influence outbreeding taxa. But we have seen that
several cps reproduce asexually predominantly (many members of
_Drosera_ subgen. Bryastrum) or even exclusively (e.g. _Utricularia
bremii_ which has so far never been observed to form fruits). So
these should not suffer under cultivation. Furthermore, genetic
diversity is frequently even increased in cultivation by mutagenesis
(I don't know cp examples here, however) and the creation of hybrids
which would not normally occur in nature (OK, I don't like these
either but they still exist). I do not agree that sexual recombination
does not increase diversity. It may even introduce new mutations
(e.g. during crossing over in meiosis) to the gene pool.
I think it is not up to scientists to supply ammunition for people
interested in conservation to shoot at people who aren't. It is the
task of mankind to recognize that natural diversity is in itself a
value worth of conservation, irrespective of possible future
applications (i.e. commercial value) to the benefit of mankind (or at
least the selling part of which). This is apparently a very difficult
lesson, and human cognition may not be ready to learn it in time.
However, I see no mission for science here if common sense is not
sufficient. Those who just go and strip sites of rare or even *all*
species will simply not bother if you offer them scientifically
corroborated theories why they should not do so. We do have religions
and laws already, and still there are atheists and criminals.
Kind regards
Jan