I couldn't agree more with the points that Aaron and Max have made. Nature is a very high impact journal and it uses its position to stir up controversy. Fair enough, but it would be a shame if it were allowed to get away with publishing an article distinguishable from gibberish only after several passes through Google's Chinese-English translation service. It could do no harm, surely, to write to the editor of Nature on this point. In addition to the flaws that Aaron and Max have pointed out, there are some disturbing passages in the article by Shirey and Lamberti. "The FWS and other government agencies face an enormous challenge in trying to manage biodiversity loss in the face of climate change with inadequate resources. Individuals and citizen groups should not take the lead on this because of the risks associated with introducing any species. Instead, the FWS should carry out controlled pilot studies first, possibly using the resources of volunteers." In other words, don't worry folks, the Feds have it all under control. You guys just sit back and let us experts sort this one out. Are they insane? The authors are seriously suggesting that the people who care most about the long term survival of plant species diversity should just take a back seat and wait for government agencies to deal with it. When you wait for the Federal government to look after the environment you end up with Illinois. Or how about this one? "The agency could also restrict the ability of consumers to buy hybrids bred from endangered species. Currently, these are not formally regulated — allowing breeders to cultivate the unique characteristics of rare plants while evading endangered-species laws." Excellent idea! Let's criminalise anyone attempting to propagate and distribute rare plant species, taking advantage of the fact that there is a market for interesting variants of these species. These so- called nurserymen are obviously evil. Good one, guys. Finally, my favourite. "About half the endangered plants available to buyers in the United States are sold in states outside their native range. Some are even sold overseas." Oooh, surely not overseas? Isn't that where Osama Bin Laden comes from? I mean absolutely no disrespect to the USA or to my many American friends when I point out that ex-situ conservation of plants in the botanical gardens of Europe has been going on since before the USA existed. The cretins who wrote this article really need to think about what they want to achieve. Are they trying to preserve ever tinier populations of plants in their 'native' ranges (what do they mean by that anyway - native now, native before man, native since the last glaciation?) or would they like rare and endangered species to survive? If the former, Nature should be ashamed of publishing the article; if the latter, they should realise that gardeners, nurserymen and passionate plantspeople are allies not enemies. Tom Message: 6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:19:16 -0800 (PST) From: aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] rare plants - Nature article Message-ID: <292559.68202.qm@web34303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ? ? ? ? ? ? I agree Max, I don?t see how this article was seen as fit for publication as it loosely links together completely different issues merely by mention ? Melaleuca tied to the 30 billion mentioned as damage caused by non-native plants on the cultivation of non-native plants (crops). They don't seem to mention the cultivation of sugarcane in the Everglades which damaged that ecologically sensitive area far more than Melaluca. Nevermind the amount of native plants and habitat destroyed by CRP programs, grain cultivation, soy, etc. But, since it was featured in Nature and subsequently on NPR I bet it won?t be long before there is a new gov. agency set up for exactly what these two were writing about. ??????????? First they claim that 10% of the 753 federally listed plants are available for sale for in-state purchase, then go on to say that most of these sales are illegal, as more than 50 sellers offering the plants for interstate sales only 4 had the proper license. Seems there is disconnect between the two as in-state and interstate are completely different issues as the authors later note. The authors then complain that half of the endangered plants are available for sale outside their native state, or, almighty benevolent government forbid, overseas?. Example: Asteropyrum asterias native to a small area of Mexico and Texas can be bought as cultivars in at least 6 states and several countries! They also say they discovered that Brighamia was available for only 29.95 online yet is known from only 10 wild plants. And, Echinacea tennessensis is now so readily available that it might be removed from the federal list! They warn that a recent hybrid between it and E. purpurea might infiltrate it genes. Nevertheless, E. tennessensis occurs with two other Echinacea species in its native range. Echinacea taxa are nearly as promiscuous as Aquilegia and phylogenetic analyses have suggested that many taxa are merely ecoptypes. It was offered as a hybrid in the nursery trade to circumvent the stupid law that limited its cultivation and nearly doomed it to extinction. ??????????? I guess the number one issue is that the nursery trade and individuals who propagate plants have been far more effective at increasing the quantity of a rare taxon and making it available in cultivation than the government has in its 40 year existence of the federal program. The argument could also be made that the government created many rare taxa; the bald eagle, American barberry, the wolves out west, etc...... ??????????? To combat potential hybridization of hybrids with endangered taxa they suggest that the sale of hybrids with an endangered species as a parent be banned. ?Aaron --- On Tue, 2/22/11, Max Withers <maxwithers@gmail.com> wrote: From: Max Withers <maxwithers@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [pbs] Changing seasons + rare plants To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:10 PM On another topic, I wanted to note a somewhat confusing article in the LA Times about a call for enhanced regulation of the trade in rare plants. Excuse me if this was discussed here before, but I just noticed it: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/… colonization-20110129 The equally confusing Nature article referred to is here (for subscribers): http://nature.com/nature/journal/… The argument about Brighamia insignis is nonsensical -- if ex-situ conservation is the only chance of a species's survival, shouldn't that be encouraged? I'll avoid further pontification, but I did think it interesting that Nature saw fit to publish this. Max Withers Oakland CA ------------------------------