> Although itUs true that mutations continue to occur
> in cultivation, probably at a rate similar to in nature, I donUt think
> this is a significant contribution to diversity.
Why not?
> Firstly, most mutations
> are deleterious, and result in a plant inferior to its parents.
This goes true for all mutations, also for those occurring in nature.
> Secondly, the rate of mutations is relatively low,
Also in nature.
> and therefore to increase
> genetic diversity in cultivation would require eons, and a very large
> population of plants, neither of which are likely in cultivation.
Are they likely in nature for e.g., _Utricularia podadena_,
_Nepenthes clipeata_, _N. campanulata_, etc.? Where? When? Do these
plants have the potential to pass the test? I decidedly doubt that.
> Also,
> in nature there are different factors at different sites which generate
> and maintain diversity. Mutagenesis will not significantly improve on
> this. Treatment with a mutagen will increase the rate of mutation, but
> you still need a huge number of plants, and a very long time to generate
> true diversity.
The important difference between nature and cultivation is, and here
I wholeheartedly agree with you, in the quality of the selective
pressure. There is diversity and evolution in cultivation and
there is diversity and evolution in nature but the diversity in
cultivation does not serve the adaptation at natural habitats (but at
those in cultivation). It is my point to show that science alone
cannot serve to provide arguments for or against cp cultivation or cp
collection. Therefore I wrote that first there must be agreement
among all human beings that we all want to preserve *natural
diversity*. I cannot see this kind of agreement at the moment (but
rather that everyone wants to get as many bucks in as short a period
of time as possible), so science is rather hopeless in this kind of
discussion.
> Finally, I think the genetic differences between
> individuals from genetically isolated populations can be huge, and I
> donUt think it will be possible to maintain, let alone reproduce this, in
> cultivation.
I do not know why you think so (if you refer to the differences
alone, not the quality of these differences). It is possible to grow
e.g. the different subspp. of _Pinguicula longifolia_ all in one
setup. In some taxa (_Drosera aliciae_ s.lat., _Pinguicula
moranensis_ s.lat.) the differences between the plants in cultivation
very well compete those found in nature. Some of their mutual
offspring literally swamp some collections. _Nepenthes_ hybrids come
in nearly all shapes possible and spoil some of the finest
collections with indeterminable rubbish (however, the diversity is
immense).
> Agreed. I think education is very important. However, it only takes a
> single unscrupulous individual to destroy sites in the wild. Therefore, I
> still feel that one must be very careful in releasing detailed locale
> data to strangers.
Who are the strangers? You should not help a killer. But do you know
who will be the killer within our population? I guess this is one of
the drawbacks of our own diversity (not necessarily only genetic). In
any event it is rather strange to suppose that scientists are always
harmless and amateurs are always dangerous. As you said already, it
only takes a single unscrupulous individual (thanks for not having
specified that individual's profession here)...
Kind regards
Jan