Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:17:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Burkhardt <burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3110$foo@default> Subject: location data
Hi Dave and all,
> . . . I can't see any reason for labelling the location
> data, as all the plants look the same. For this species, I feel data
> location data worth keeping would be if the plants were from another
> county, like Cuba or somewhere in South America where the climate is
> completely different and so then might the plants' needs.
As I told Dave via private email, I prefer to keep track of where all my
plants originated from, regardless of whether a species shows little to no
morphological difference over a geographic range. This is just a matter of
personal taste, but I can come up with other, more noble, reasons to keep
location data for such non-variable species.
First, I would like to point out that the classifications of species is
completely artificial, based on human criterias. Secondly, although two
plants may be considered the same species, they are not necessarily
'exact' in all respects, especially if they evolved in different habitats
or geographic regions. Thus, the first reason to preserve location data;
to protect and preserve subtle differences beyond morphology for means of
scientific understanding of plant evolution and dispersal.
An example of such a subtle difference beyond appearances, is in
adaptation to a given habitat. Each habitat has its own ecology and a
delicate micro-equilibrium exists in these pockets. Adaptations to such
pockets occur over an immense period of time, and as these habitats begin
to further separate themselves not only in space but in ecology, so too
will the differences in plants of the same species begin to become more
apparent. But the difference already exists now, even in same species
plants from different locations, whether seen by the eye or not. Random
mutations constantly occur, and if the mutation is advantageous to a
certain habitat, then those plants with the mutation will 'evolve' to be
even more dissimilar to the plants deemed as the same species but from a
different location.
This leads to a second reason for location data, conservation of
populations of plants. Due to the large length in time to adapt to a
habitat, re-introducing species which originated from the same habitat in
question will have a greater advantage than introducing the same species
from a different location. There are however, some fallacies to this
reasoning. One being that when grown in the hobby collection, these plants
become selected to succeed in such an 'artificial' habitat. Nonetheless,
certain genetic traits, descended from the original wild ancestors, will
still persist. Another argument against this, is the lack of genetic
diversity in hobby collections. However, I find little substantial basis
to the claims of this argument in this context. All things evolved from
little genetic diversity. It is random mutations, beyond our control,
which provides genetic diversity. I doubt that anyone can present a
formula by which a calculation can be made showing the minimum genetic
diversity required for success. Instead, I propose that given 100,000
clones, say of the venerable venus fly trap, they will in time become a
self-sustaining and genetically diverse population.
To conclude, a third noble reason for conserving location data is for
historical records. Although mostly sentimental, it is still a worthy
reason. I only hope that our wild carnivorous plants will not become
history, but ever present.
Good growing to all,
Paul Burkhardt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:07 PST