Betr: Re: Arisaema hybrids

[Rand Nicholson]

Wilbert, Tony and Interested Parties:

>
>
>A bit off-topic but it is not universally accepted that individuels of the
>species Homo sapiens actually create new species by intentional
>hybridisation activities in the human social context (society). Intentional
>hybridisation is not the same thing as the complex of natural processes that
>fuel the motor of evolution and hence species-formation.

It could also be argued that this kind of (social) intercourse is as natural as that of a plant popping up far from home out of a plop of bird droppings and passing its pollen on to the nearest sexually receptive like-minded plant that was capable of using it. You would have to give an example where humans were actively selecting for characteristics in a breeding program for this analogy to hold up. The Nazi ubermench philosophy comes to mind (all Nazi flames privately, please), but that was far from successful and, I assume, is no longer active. I know of no Walden II's or III's at present.

>
>Tony also writes:
>
>  I
>> am not convinced that CITIES designations is the answer since that
>> interferes with legitimate commerce and does not address the
>> causes for
>> habitat loss.  Most of us cannot control habitat destruction in other
>> countries, but we can continue to propagate and distribute
>> species while
>> working where possible to conserve habitats.  We must also
>> work with other
>> countries which are embracing capitalism to teach them the benefits to
>> propagation as opposed to wild collection.
>
>Does this mean, Tony, that you are happier with the consequences of the
>Convention on Biological Diversity? The CBD addresses habitat conservation
>as well and asks you, Tony (as a commercial enterprise), to share the
>benefits of your commercial work with the countries of origin of the plant
>material you use. That benefit sharing principle should help that country in
>sustaining its habitats........
>
Something like the above may well be worthy of consideration, if it could be made workable and sustainable. CITIES, however,  is a TRADE agreement initially designed to protect animals, but treats plants as the same. It is now a monster that limits the availability of threatened gene pools while doing absolutely nothing _de facto_ to aid in the preservation of habitat and species. That is up to individual sovereign countries. It is driven by bureaucracies and politics, is administered in broad strokes and open to interpretation by the various nations that are signed on to it. In my opinion it, while it may be modified so that it may actually help preserve some plant species, it cannot be fixed. It is simply the wrong tool for the job at hand.

Not to put too fine a point on it.


Regards,

Rand



--
Rand Nicholson
Zone 5b Eastern Maritime Canada