Hi, I have read these posts with interest, but have remained quiet for the most part, mainly observing, but I feel like I should respond to the email forwarded to us by Shirley. I understand and regard the work by conservationists of utmost importance in the preservation of biodiversity on earth. However, I can't help but take on a more negative side of things because of the reality of the matter. Species are being lost at an amazing rate and even with all the specialized conservation efforts out there, it's just not enough. These groups and agencies are bounded by budget, workers, and bureaucratic red tape that it is not possible for them to maximize their effort. There are a few points in which I question as the main concerns stated in the email. Probably because of my ignorance, but I don't know of any documented cases where people would go and collect rare wild plants of something already widespread in cultivation. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can educate me on this point and the ones below. One of the concerns is about selection and loss of genetic diversity in garden grown plants. But don't conservation agencies grow their plants in nurseries? Sure, they may have a lot more genetic material available, but don't all of them go through the same selection process when they are grown in the nursery? When they are re-introduced, don't the plants suffer from the same fate of death by natural selection as any regular garden plant? Let's say that a "Johnny Appleseed" garden grown plant makes it back out into the wild and starts to intermingle with the native population. The fact that a garden grown plant survives in the wild means that it has the genetics to withstand at least some of the selection pressure in the wild. In which case, is it so bad for the genes from this apparent successful plant be transferred to the native population? If the progeny of the garden x wild plant does not contain good genes, they will just be wiped out by the natural selection forces. This argument of course discounts the importance of pollen/seed competition between wild and garden plant and it ignores hybrids. What about diseases? Are there documented cases of diseases being spread by a "Johnny Appleseed" garden plant? If it's a fungal disease, there is a good chance that the spores are already spread from plants grown in gardens to the nearby wild populations. The fact that wild plants survive, means that they have some sort of resistance. With the impetus of biodiversity disappearing, there must be an effort made immediately to reach any help possible. It is no longer feasible for small conservation groups to work on conservation alone. I understand the concerns about reintroductions but these concerns are holding everyone back. So instead of wishing that more people could help, why not give the people who are interested a push in the right direction? Like someone mentioned earlier, the approaches may be different but the goals are the same. Nhu Berkeley, CA From: Kathryn Kennedy [mailto:Kathryn.Kennedy@mobot.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 5:17 AM > Subject: RE: [pbs] Saving Endangered Plants > > Commercialization does have real risks...including increasing the threat of > irresponsible overcollection and damage in the wild of the few existing > delicate sites remainng because of creating a wider market of interest in > the plants, people deriving material in cultivation so that it no longer > has > the wild adapted traits desired and could present genetic risk to wild > populations, etc., and compassionate enthusiasts with too low an > understanding of the habitat specificity and considerations doing informal > "jonny appleseed" reintroductions in areas where they can do harm to the > target species or others in the area (and damage the reputation of > horticulturists, gardeners, and serious botanical gardens everywhere with > the state and federal resource agencies). >