hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!)

  • Subject: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!)
  • From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <hetter@worldonline.nl>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:04:05 -0500 (CDT)

To Ron, from Amorph- and cultivated plant taxonomy -land

I think you're mixing two "realities". I do see that you recognise them,
being "nature" and its own laws of evolution of biodiversity and "man" (or
should that read "women".....?), with its own influence on biodiversity,
leading to a parallell diversity in domesticated entities (e.g. plant
cultivars, domesticated cats and dogs, cows, and what have you). I think we
should not condemn what we're doing ourselves to improve our society (think
of agricultural crops being vastly artificially improved to fill our needs)
because we obscure the beauty of wild things. We have a pre-set goal in
manipulating plants and animals and we do it and succeed, resulting in a
kind of "culto-diversity" with which we are mostly very pleased. Nature has
no intentional goal and thus "produces" another kind of diversity, which we
may like, or maybe even dislike. I don't think you should take "nature"
itself as the norm and adapt our domestication and breeding to THAT norm. WE
are the norm, whether some of us like or dislike that anthropocentrism. It's
reality, and that's what it is.

Should we revert to collecting our food ONLY from what nature has to offer
in its present form? I guess we'd have a REAL social problem coming up then.

Suggested reading (and self-promotion....): Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & W.A.
Brandenburg. 1995. Culton vs. Taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant
systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175.

Have phun.


----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Iles <roniles@eircom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 1:22
Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!!

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <magrysbo@shu.edu>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" <aroid-l@mobot.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!!
> |
> | Yes, imagine a paeonifolius "super-sized": or on a taller stem like that
> of
> | gigas! Howbout novel colorpatterns from breeding with albispathus?
> | C'mon Wilbert! Its done with Anthurium and Spathiphyllum!
> | Bonaventure W. Magrys
> | Cliffwood Beach, NJ
> Bonaventure!
> Your mention of Spathiphyllum has brought me into this.  I have Wilbert's
> friends' wonderful monograph on Amorphophallus,  Even though to me they
> hellish in contrast to heavenly Peace Lilies please can I write my
> Many generations of haphazard & usually undocumented hybridisation of
> Spathiphyllum has produced chaos.  Spectacular "artificial" cultivars now
> reign where only elegantly adapted natural species existed before.
> evolved over the mists of time to suit their ecological niches, exactly.
> Cultivars for Man's "ornament" unrelated to natural evolution & sometimes
> degrading of Natural fitness.   Most could not survive true competition in
> the wild.
> Is it to be the same history with everything when Man's curiosity leads
> to try to "improve" upon Nature.  If so, then a plea to keep wild species
> integrity in cultivation.  Another plea objectively to document heritages
> pedigrees of all "hybrids" most carefully before allocating meaningless
> "names".   There is hardly a group of "domesticated" animals or plants
> Man has not tried to improve upon to the detriment & often loss of the
> "wild" species.   But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus",
> arguably the "King" of Aquarium Fishes.  Over less than three decades, the
> arbitrary & mostly undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely
> specialised creatures has produced the most extreme degradation of
> nobility & adapted biodiversity.   All for Man's sensationalism.
> There are major principles here for all those who breed wild species.  Why
> does one hybridise?   Surely, if species have been most carefully brought
> into the custody of domestic cultivation from the wild there is an
> inalienable responsibilityfor Homo sapiens to honour not to trivialise
> Nature?
> I have tried to add humour to discussions even on plants which I can say
> euphemistically are not my favourites.  Sorry to be serious.  I do not
> to be a party pooper but there is a major ethic here.
> Ron Iles
> |
> | GeoffAroid@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/20/2001 02:44:08 AM
> |
> | Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org
> |
> | Sent by:  aroid-l@mobot.org
> |
> |
> | To:   Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
> | cc:
> |
> | Subject:  Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!!
> |
> |
> |
> | In a message dated 19/6/01 11:10:48 pm, magrysbo@shu.edu writes:
> |
> | << Brian, You're making hybrids? Great. >>
> |
> | I have visions of an Amorph with the vigour, hardiness and ability to
> | divide
> | of konjac and the size and dramatic structure of titanum; the mind
> | boggles......I think Wilbert has just fainted at the thought......
> |
> | Geoffrey Kibby
> | London
> |
> |
> |
> |

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index