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

Re: Line breeding vs hybridization

  • Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
  • From: "Eduardo Goncalves" <edggon@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:35:41 -0500 (CDT)

Dear Jim,

    Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the 
link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow. Should we divide the 
species between natural species and artificial species? We have some 
borderline cases. Let's talk about Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott. It 
was discovered (firstly by Linneus) based on plants cultivated at West 
Indies. It probably doesn't occur in the wild, but associated with 
"primitive" people.  It is clearly (not so clearly) different from the other 
species of Xanthosoma, but it probably has its origins associated with 
humans. Should we consider it an artificial species, or should we consider 
it as a species that evolved in some kind of mutualistic relation with the 
human animal? The same with X. riedelianum, X. atrovirens and many other 
species. Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild. It was 
described based on cultivated specimens, and it was never found again, 
except at the closest supermarket. (Ron, correct me if I am wrong) Linnean 
binomials are artificial in their origin, and it will remains like this 
until we discover something different. A Linnean name only means a peculiar 
association of genes, translated to morphology in a non-linear way. We only 
avoid using it in cultivated plants ("very artificial species") because it 
would turn into a very hard task, naming all those brand new association of 
genes. There would be much more noise than information on it!!! Anyway, 
Linnaeus never thought in wild populations, because he wasn't aware about 
the hell of evolution. He was happy, indeed. All this confusion appeared 
when we started to mix up Linnaeus and evolutionary thinking. They are 
almost like oil and water.

   Good growing anyway (whatever is the name of the thing you grow),


>"Canis familiaris" was never a good species entity. Linnaeus named it from
>the domestic dog - not from a wild population.
>     Jim Langhammer
>In a message dated 06/23/2001 1:48:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>StellrJ@aol.com writes:
><< In a message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2001  4:12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Piabinha@aol.com writes:
>  << in the u.s. lately, more and more scientists see that not only there's 
>distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also
>the same species.
>  Really?  This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf, 
>after all, the coyote now lives where the wolf once did -- and never mind
>that true wolves kill off and tend to extirpate coyotes.  Those cattle guys
>outside Yellowstone will love that.  And, since some were already alleging
>that the red wolf was a just a wolf-coyote hybrid anyway, well, there's
>another species we no longer have to conserve.  What will the anti-wolf 
>come up with next?
>  Jason Hernandez
>  Naturalist-at-Large >>

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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