Betr: Re: Arisaema hybrids

[Wilbert Hetterscheid (prive)]

Tony,

>
>         Why is intentional hybridization not the same as
> "complex natural
> processes?"

Do you know of papers that tell us from a scientific point of view that
natural processes include those which have an intention? What is the
"intention" of the coming-into-existence of any species in the wild? What
recent taxonomic treatments and phylogeny reconstructions of genera contain
cultivated elements? Man's interference in the genetic background of species
groups in genera is universally seen as "noise" in the scientific attempt to
unravel the evolutionary history of genera. Why do we have the term cultivar
if we would be happy to name a man-made intentional hybdrid a "species". I
don't think this is all as clear-cut as you and Jim McClements seem to
think.

I am making a plea for being careful in what could be called a species. In
my view, man-made genepools are not the stuff of evolution as used as
theoretical background in biology. Ask Tom Croat to include Anthurium
cultivars in his taxonomic revisions of that genus. I don't think he's be
willing to do that. And when he would include cultivars in phylogeny
reconstructions he's be unhappy to find that reticulations in evolutionary
between "species" could not be explained simply by invoking evolution as we
know it.

The diversity in plants as existent in the human social context and
developed there for its use, is different from that in the wild and NEEDS
continuous directed care in order to stay intact. If we let cultivars escape
or even 99% disappear. Why? Because the particular cultivar cannot compete
outside its own protected human-driven environment. I think that is a
different behaviour from species that came into existence in the wild and as
a result of that heritage are competitive in that environment. Cultivated
stuff has a different heritage because genepools are combined under "force"
that would otherwise never conbine and exist. They must be maintained by
human care, or disappear. This intentionally created and artificially
maintained environment is not the stuff of evolution as is used today. We
may have to redescribe evolution to encompass this environment and its
products but we're not there yet.

That starts with that unusual premise that Homo
> sapiens is not
> part of nature.

You are jumping a way too fast here. I didn't say that. I was talking about
the place of products made by the industrious Homo sapiens. It may be a
matter of level at which one observes this. From an extraterrestrial point
of view, looking at our puny planet, a Martian might simply consider all
things happening on earth "nature" and hence too all products that the
species Homo sapiens makes. From a taxonomic/evolutionary point of view, ON
the planet, this perspective may differ, as it does with me.

If I draw your point of view further, why not say that a car is a natural
thing because it consist of natural products (e.g. metals) and made by man
who is part of nature........? Is therefore the car part of nature?

Ah...human intentions.  I think this was
> addressed quite
> well in Michael Pollan's, The Botany of Desire...a must read
> for everyone.

Sorry, haven't read it. An omission as it seems.

>         As for the CBD, it was one of those well-intentioned
> documents that did
> far more harm than good.  The intent of the CBD was to recoup
> money from
> profits of multi-national drug companies who used plants from
> country X.  I
> wonder how much CBD monies actually are used to help with habitat
> conservation.  I imagine it's unfortunately more like the UN
> Oil for Food
> program.  The CBD has handcuffed botanical and horticultural
> institutions
> who deal with countries who think that sharing only means
> money.  The free
> flow of genetic material and the exchange of ideas in
> information is the
> critical part of conservation. The CBD group obviously didn't have a
> representative from the world of common sense.

That said, and I am largely not in disagreement with you, you are handcuffed
too by it as a commercial enterprise and not just organisations and
institutions. Or do you disagree? I think these handcuffs are far more
restrictive than CITES ever was........

Cheerio,
Wilbert