Sharing seeds of rare plants
pbs.spiranthes@spamgourmet.com (Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:11:25 PST)

Summary of the Argument:

It is argued that unfettered propagation, distribution, and any possible
concomitant genetic contamination of otherwise isolated endangered plant
populations are in the best interests of endangered plants. I argue that
these are assertions that we cannot take as true merely on the basis of
personal authority and that these assertions need to be proven by way of
specific examples, scientifically-proven facts, and scholarly research.

This is confusing. If these authorities are self-appointed, how is it
that they have any power to affect you? Why do you even "deal" with
them? Why not ignore them?

Because you don't state what those arguments are, it is not possible for
anyone to determine if the arguments are indeed devoid of logic. And
I'm not simply going to take your word that unspecified arguments, whose
contents are unknown to me, are devoid of logic.

You have put up a lengthy compilation of emails on your Plant Delights
web site from people who describe you in the most unflattering terms and
who are deeply disappointed with you
(http://www.plantdelights.com/Received-Mail-Rants/). So I imagine you
don't expect us to take your description of the arrogance of others, and
your subsequent disappointment, seriously. When others say pretty much
the same about you, you treat it as a "rant." Are you now the one who is
ranting?

Because you provide no references for any of these assertions, I assume
that we are supposed to accept them on the basis of your personal,
expert knowledge or first hand experience. However, I am unable to find
any evidence that you have expert knowledge in, or experience with,
conservation biology. Your biography in Wikipedia provides no
information regarding education and states only that you are an expert
horticulturist and a plant breeder. But it doesn't say you are a
conservation biologist. In any case, you ignore (or perhaps are ignorant
of) many issues in conservation biology. For example, in situ
conservation can protect an entire habitat as well as numerous other
organisms associated with an endangered taxon. So it would be helpful
for you to explain why your option, of unfettered propagation and
distribution, is preferable to conserving an endangered taxon in situ,
in the habitat in which it evolved and inside the evolutionary envelope
containing all the other organisms with which the taxon co-evolved.

We do not "all know" that what you assert is true. As I am not
knowledgeable in population biology or genetics, I do not know that
genetic bottlenecks "usually" lead to long-term population decline and
reductions in adaptability. That is an assertion that you need to prove.

Whatever the case regarding bottlenecks, I do know that plants that
produce genetically identical copies of themselves and that rarely
engage in sexual reproduction, are often *not* in decline and often show
* no* reduction in adaptability. Some plant genera consist of both
predominantly sexually reproducing species and apomictic microspecies
(stable, genetically uniform, predominantly non-sexually reproducing
populations recognized as species by some botanists and recognized as
microspecies by other botanists). In the Northern Hemisphere, the
genetically uniform microspecies have *larger* ranges than sexually
reproducing species in the same genus. Thus, contradicting any
assertions that genetically uniform plants that do not engage in genetic
exchange are less vigorous or "in decline" with respect to sexually
reproducing congeneric species. This phenomenon is known as
"geographical parthenogenesis" (see, e.g., Hörandl et al. 2008.
Understanding the geographic distributions of apomictic plants: a case
for a pluralistic approach. Plant Ecology and Diversity 1(2): 309–320).
That same work also states, "Selfing is a frequent phenomenon in plants,
and well known as a predominant mode of reproduction of colonisers, such
as annual pioneer plants, invasive plants and island endemics." As a
plant breeder, I am sure you know that selfing may recombine a plant's
genetic material but it introduces no new genetic material and it most
definitely does not involve "genetic exchange between populations."
Perhaps you might care to explain why selfing is the "predominant mode
of reproduction of colonisers." Or do you contend that colonizing plants
are in "long term population decline" and susceptible to "reductions in
adaptability"?

I am unaware of any biogeographer who would describe such movement as
"all around the continent." Also, glaciations sometimes led to plants
being restricted to small, isolated areas (so called glacial refugia)
and some plants, such as the relictual species now found in Florida's
panhandle, never left such refugia. By forcing plants into refugia,
glaciations may perhaps have *constrained* plant movement as much as
they facilitated plant movement. But, of course, that is merely a
personal observation. I am not a geologist or a biogeographer.

You provide no evidence for the assertion that "constant movement"
invigorates plant populations.

So you consider it a problem when the natural distribution of a plant is
interrupted by an invasive plant?

I am not sure what's your point. To state that "things could be worse"
is a cliche irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So the most efficient way to preserve the genomes of wolves and coyotes
is to breed the two together? That's the *most efficient* way? And how
do you get a wolf or coyote back from the wolyote or coyolf you just
created? Do you selectively breed for the most wolf-appearing or
coyote-appearing progeny for 15, 30, or whatever number of generations?
Wouldn't it have been more efficient to simply have bred the wolf with
another wolf and the coyote with another coyote? Is this the system you
use at Juniper Level Botanic Gardens to preserve the genomes of two
different congeneric species? Do you breed them together into one handy
hybrid that takes up half the space of its two parents? If not, why not?
After all, Dr. Griesbach, or so you claim, says it's "the most efficient
way to preserve [the] genetics."

So the arguments for the preservation of local indigenous biodiversity
are merely a ploy or collusion by scientists, peer review boards, and
funding agencies that has been perpetrated with the sole purpose of
getting grant monies into the hands of a few people with an
excruciatingly specific myopic view of nature? Is there any evidence for
this conspiracy theory?

Destiny? You are using a mental abstraction as the basis for your
assertions? And are you now promoting the concept of nature as an
anthropomorphized teleological force to explain plant extinction? It's
odd that you go with destiny and a personalized pseudo-deified version
of nature as the possible causes of extinction in rare plants . . . but
you don't mention habitat destruction, plant collectors, pollution, and
invasive animal and plant pests.

According to your statement above, concepts regarding endangered plant
genetics (and thus endangered plants) serve to funnel grant money to
people with a specific myopic view of nature. And grant money provides
direct and indirect economic benefits. So, is this economic benefit
desirable? You do argue that "any use that has an economic benefit would
be desirable."

The above are examples of two logical fallacies: appeal to emotion (this
is sad) and appeal to negative consequences (this will cause human
suffering). But even if the arguments by plant conservationists
regarding genetic contamination do result in sadness or suffering, that
does not mean that the arguments are false. And it does not then mean
that your assertions are true. You need to prove that your assertions
are true using specific examples, scientifically proven facts, and
scholarly research. Appeals to emotion and appeals to negative
consequences indicate only that you do not have facts and science to
back-up your assertions.

There will be no "major backlash" because the "problem" that you are
describing affects a vanishingly small number of people. So outside of
this very tiny group, the vast majority of people are not concerned that
endangered plants cannot be as freely exploited as you desire.

Finally, I find this statement somewhat disturbing in its
grandiose-paranoid-delusional wording. You call for a *major* backlash.
And this "backlash" must be worldwide in scope. And the "backlash" is
not to be directed at any one specific target with the power to amend
the Endangered Species Act. Instead, it is to be directed against the
entirety of the "academic elite" throughout the entire world. The
wording is scary because aren't major backlashes against wide segments
of the "academic elite" usually associated with oppressive regimes?

If I were in your position, I would advocate for an amendment to the
legal statute that encumbers the propagation and distribution of
endangered plants. Perhaps I would begin by writing to my elected
representatives. A "major backlash against the academic elite of the
world" would be pretty far down on my list of things to advocate for in
order to change the Endangered Species Act. But, apparently, it's at
the top of your list.

_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/