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: News from the Jungle

  • Subject: Re: News from the Jungle
  • From: Betsy Feuerstein <ecuador@midsouth.rr.com>
  • Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:55:11 -0500 (CDT)

I suppose there is that possibility. Hard to keep botanical information for a botanist if one does not have the capacity to say where it came from. Hard to ID something unless it is known where it came from. Perhaps general information like GPS and province information would be good. I somehow do not think you will agree with me and I can understand that one. Choices all the way around. In general, most collected stuff is not of that great an interest to be of any significance to anyone else much. I know in cycads such information is guarded with life and limb, but one can get killed seeking cycads for sure.


StellrJ@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated Fri, 18 May 2001 10:36:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Betsy Feuerstein <ecuador@midsouth.rr.com> writes:
> << There are those whom, I have known, who would not
> tell a botanist where they collected anything correctly. False information is a
> control/power factor and one I would like to see avoided.
> The question is, why do they do this?  I know that, when I see a rare species in an out-of-the-way spot, I usually just keep my mouth shut, unless I foresee that spot being destroyed in the near future.  This is because I have been brought to the conclusion that "hiding out" is the only hope for many species.  If it is a sought-after species, the grapevine will carry word of its whereabouts to poachers; if it is a legally-protected species, a landowner is likely to destroy it before the powers-that-be find out, to avoid restrictions on use of the land.  That is human nature, and will not change.
> An experience I had in Venezuela sums up the situation nicely.  We in the Developed World often hear, or read, that "people will only protect what they understand and care about."  But is this always true?  I was with a group canoeing on a jungle river in Venezuela, when we pulled ashore on a sandbar.  On this sandbar was a rookery of black skimmers.  To me, they seemed dangerously vulnerable -- the "nests" were mere hollows in the sand, in plain sight, and the birds simply flew away at our approach, rather than attempt to defend their eggs.  The local people were poor, and eggs are rich in protein, so when we returned to our field station, I asked the Venezuelan professor whether the birds weren't in danger from egg poachers.  He said no, the local people are just not interested in black skimmer eggs, so they do not bother going to the sandbar.  Sad to say, I think that may be the only hope for many species -- they will survive only if people are just not interested in dist!
> !
> bing them.  So perhaps you will
> forgive me for keeping mum about my rare-species sightings....
> Jason Hernandez
> Naturalist-at-Large

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