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. > I have had more dealings with the self-appointed controllers of rare > plants than I'd like to remember. 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? > I find their arguments devoid of any logic . . . 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. > . . . and [I] find their arrogance disappointing 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? > First, if anyone believes that climate changes, then the least > effective method of conserving a rare plant would be in situ > conservation. Propagation and widespread distribution is far more > logical. While in situ conservation makes us feel good and may be fine > in the short term, it really isn't a good long term conservation strategy. 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. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but few plants would exist today without > genetic exchange between populations, since as we all know, genetic > bottlenecks usually lead to long term population decline and > reductions in adaptability. 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"? > The US has been glaciated 17 times, during which plants were moved all > around the continent. 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. > It is this constant movement that keeps populations reinvigorated . . . You provide no evidence for the assertion that "constant movement" invigorates plant populations. > . . . as opposed to the isolation that exists now as natural > distributions have been interrupted by humans. So you consider it a problem when the natural distribution of a plant is interrupted by an invasive plant? > Also, would it not be worse on a natural population of Echinacea > laevigata if a homeowner planted the commonly sold Echinacea purpurea > near the preserve since echinaceas are notorious cross breeders? I am not sure what's your point. To state that "things could be worse" is a cliche irrelevant to the topic at hand. > Even this, according to Dr. Rob Griesbach of the USDA would be a good > idea, since according to him, the most efficient way to preserve to > genetics is to create hybrids since these store all of the genetics > from several parents in a single offspring. 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." > The entire notion of preserving rare plant genetics is actually a > modus operandi to preserve the flow of grant money to fund people with > this myopic view of nature. 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? > Most plants are rare because they are poorly adaptable..often existing > in a very specialized, limited size ecosystem. It seems to me that > these plants were destined by nature to go extinct, if you consider > historical climate change part of nature. 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. > Finally, if the plant is not going to be used by humans, what is the > point of preservation, if you limit human access and use? In my world, > any use that has an economic benefit would be desirable, since this is > the basis of our human society. 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." > Our current system is sadly broken . . . both plants and humans will > suffer. 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. > . . . until there is a major backlash against the academic elite of > the world . . . 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/