Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
- Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
- From: "Ron Iles" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:42:41 -0500 (CDT)
You wrote: "Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild. It was
described based on cultivated specimens".
That is in accord with Bunting Vol 10:1.1960. pp 40-41. Spathiphyllum
wallisii Regel was described from a plant in European cultivation in 1877.
In the UK Collection there were ten or more variations of the magnificent
form. In-numerable superior hybrids past and present like S. "clevelandii"
& S. "kochii" have the plant in their fine pedigrees. If any was needed,
having the holy wild S. wallisii ancestor in cultivation would be further
affirmation of the reasons for excellence of the "best" cultivars. As I
wrote before, when DNA analysis is the basis for nomenclature, discussion
about what is what, will be rendered effete. Everyone will know
unequivocally where they stand. Inferior defective forms resulting from
wayward outbreeding with impure forms can be destroyed. Reprehensible
miscagenation can be eliminated. The "best" species, cultivars, & hybrids
with the right pedigrees can be selectively line bred and test tube cultured
according to the dictates of Man, Master of Nature.....with no argument,
eugenically. So let's have rallying calls in unison to hasten the coming of
the New Age.
Ron Iles (Specialist Spathiphyllum Section)
| binomials are artificial in their origin, and it will remains like this
| until we discover something different. A Linnean name only means a
| association of genes, translated to morphology in a non-linear way. We
| avoid using it in cultivated plants ("very artificial species") because it
| would turn into a very hard task, naming all those brand new association
| 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
| >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
| >distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are
| >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
| >outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already
| >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.