Hybrids

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2000.04.28 at 03:11:29(4460) Dear Aroiders, There is no problem in hybridize plants. They do it all the time in nature! The main problem is that they don't tell us. We, the taxonomists, are always trying to explain the diversity like we were living in a completely Darwinist world. Reticulation (a beautiful name for the promiscuity in plants) is a real thing. Even without curious hybrid-nuts, plant taxonomy would be already in a mess because of free love in nature. People just make it faster! Cheers, Eduardo. +More P.S. Believe me, I am a plant taxonomist too! > >Neil, > >you are talking about an ideal world where never ever plant labels get >lost or mixed up. If you are going to hybridize Amorphophallus in >your own cultivation, this is perfectly ok and might result in some >beautiful new clones. > >BUT as soon as these hybrids are going to be distributed to other >aroiders, then this will have fatal effects sooner or later. Even the >best documents and records will get lost in the one or other >cultivation some day, there's no doubt about it. > >Just face the fact, that plants will be mixed up in the ongoing >distribution and redistribution process and not all of us have the >possibilities nor knowlegdes to make a proper identification for >unlabeled Amorphophallus. > >Thus it is very likely for example that a hybrid which is phenotypical >(don't know the exact word in English = appearance of a plant) close >to a species might be re-distributed as the species ... > >Even to think about it seems a nightmare to me. > > > If documented, what is the problem with trying to hybridize > > Amorphophallus? > > (BTW the plural of Amorphophallus is Amorphophallus) > >Isn't it Amorphophalli ??? > >Cheers, > >Bj?rn Malkmus > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.04.29 at 00:37:02(4461) Reticulation (a beautiful name for the > promiscuity in plants) is a real thing > Cheers, > Eduardo. > > P.S. Believe me, I am a plant taxonomist too! > > > I have never heard the word reticulation used in conjunction with sex. I thought it meant 'net viened'. Neil +More P.S. I am not a plant taxonomist

From: "Bjoern Malkmus" bjoern.malkmus at verwaltung.uni-mainz.de> on 2000.04.29 at 00:38:50(4463) Eduardo and all Aroiders, certainly mother nature admits natural hybrids in the course of evolution to create new plants which will adopt to a (new) niche, to substitute less vigorous species, or to climatical etc. changes and so on. BUT I doubted that an A. titanum will ever have the chance to cross with an A. konjac for example, or even two species growing in the same habitat but with different flowering times. In my opinion "artificial" (=human made) hybridization is simply against nature. However I have it clear, that on even crossing two clones from a single species in cultivation the result might be called artificial ... Just don' t see a point why human beings should "improve" plants in only few years what nature has developed in millions of years ... I enjoy nature the way it is and so hopefully my children will have the opportunity ... To all a nice weekend, Bj?rn Malkmus +More > There is no problem in hybridize plants. They do it all the time in > nature! The main problem is that they don't tell us. We, the > taxonomists, are always trying to explain the diversity like we were > living in a completely Darwinist world. Reticulation (a beautiful name > for the promiscuity in plants) is a real thing. Even without curious > hybrid-nuts, plant taxonomy would be already in a mess because of free > love in nature. People just make it faster! > Cheers, > Eduardo. > > P.S. Believe me, I am a plant taxonomist too! > > > > >Neil, > > > >you are talking about an ideal world where never ever plant labels get > >lost or mixed up. If you are going to hybridize Amorphophallus in your > >own cultivation, this is perfectly ok and might result in some > >beautiful new clones. > > > >BUT as soon as these hybrids are going to be distributed to other > >aroiders, then this will have fatal effects sooner or later. Even the > >best documents and records will get lost in the one or other > >cultivation some day, there's no doubt about it. > > > >Just face the fact, that plants will be mixed up in the ongoing > >distribution and redistribution process and not all of us have the > >possibilities nor knowlegdes to make a proper identification for > >unlabeled Amorphophallus. > > > >Thus it is very likely for example that a hybrid which is phenotypical > >(don't know the exact word in English = appearance of a plant) close to > >a species might be re-distributed as the species ... > > > >Even to think about it seems a nightmare to me. > > > > > If documented, what is the problem with trying to hybridize > > > Amorphophallus? > > > (BTW the plural of Amorphophallus is Amorphophallus) > > > >Isn't it Amorphophalli ??? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Bj?rn Malkmus > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > >

From: StroWi at t-online.de (StroWi) on 2000.04.29 at 00:40:49(4465) Dear Aroiders, plant taxonomists especially, I wonder if anyone ever tried to use molecular methods like DNA-fingerprints/ - markers to examine the genetic relationship or distance between Amorphophalli species. It could be also a tool to identify hybrids. +More Any comments welcome..... Cheers, Bernhard. StroWi@t-online.de sind: Traud Winkelmann, Bernhard, Onno und Konrad Strolka Ansgarweg 33 D - 23879 M?lln Germany

From: "Scott Lucas" htbg at ilhawaii.net> on 2000.04.29 at 00:56:38(4469) Quickly... Per Webster: of, relating to, or constituting evolutionary change on genetic +More recombination involving diverse interbreeding populations.

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.04.29 at 03:54:24(4472) > > Just don' t see a point why human beings should "improve" plants in > only few years what nature has developed in millions of years ... I > enjoy nature the way it is and so hopefully my children will have the > opportunity ... +More > > To all a nice weekend, > > Bj?rn Malkmus There are many, many ,many 'points' why humans should and do "improve" plants on mother nature. Nature is not perferct. Some examples of why people have and do produce hybrids ALL VALID. The most valuable use of hybrids to humans is undoubtably agricultural. I like my corn on the cob to be bigger than my thumb! Some times a plant that is desirable is not easily grown. Sometimes some of these desirable traits may be crossed onto a kindred species which is easier to grow. ( Anth. dressleri is hard to grow in Florida, but it's hybrids are grown very well there) Curiosity is a good enough reason to make cut flowers last longer, to make vegatables bigger, tastier, and or more productive and resistant to desease. Even though someone said this is 'old hat' , hybrids can be used to show inter specific or intergeneric relationships. The list can go on but I think my point is clear. the improvement of plants through hybridization is a valid , and even neccessary part of our existance. I too enjoy nature the way it is and personally prefer to collect species.....but I beleive there are many valid opinions for and against hybridizaiton. I just don't see that these opinions should be mutually exclusive of each other. People are going to hybridize plants because they can and I doubt that it will ever, ever stop. As John Banta always points out......The genes of some species now only exist in the hybrids they parented. The recombination of genes happens in the course of nature.....I don't seperate the actions of humans from nature. Humans and their actions are inseperable from nature. I have never understood why people think that our actions and brains seperate us from nature. We are just as answerable to natures laws as every other thing. Neil

From: Don Martinson llmen at execpc.com> on 2000.04.29 at 05:42:59(4473) >Reticulation (a beautiful name for the >> promiscuity in plants) is a real thing >> Cheers, +More >> Eduardo. >> >> P.S. Believe me, I am a plant taxonomist too! >> >> > >I have never heard the word reticulation used in conjunction with sex. I >thought it meant 'net viened'. > >Neil At 7:56 PM -0500 4/28/00, Scott Lucas wrote: >Per Webster: > >of, relating to, or constituting evolutionary change on genetic >recombination involving diverse interbreeding populations. Actually, I'd prefer the term "miscegenation", while originally applied to the human races, it conveys more of that promiscuity or "against nature" tone. (N.B. no moral judgements implied here!). -- Don Martinson Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mailto:llmen@execpc.com

From: Betsytrips at aol.com on 2000.04.29 at 18:07:30(4476) In a message dated 4/28/00 10:54:37 PM Central Daylight Time, zzamia@hargray.com writes: << The recombination of genes happens in the course of nature.....I don't +More seperate the actions of humans from nature. Humans and their actions are inseperable from nature. I have never understood why people think that our actions and brains seperate us from nature. We are just as answerable to natures laws as every other thing. >> Excellent point in all of its aspects. Perhaps we all should read it three times to realize we are a responsible integral part of the system. Like it or not, do it or not, we are responsible for the consequences to our actions. Good food for thought! Betsy

From: StroWi at t-online.de (StroWi) on 2000.04.30 at 15:12:56(4480) Dear Scott, dear Wilbert, thanks for replying. Scott, Would you have further bibliogragical information (Journal, Year etc.)? Thanks, Bernhard. Wilbert, Would you a name and an (email-) adress of the Leiden student working on molecular level on Amorphophallus species? Thanks, Bernhard. Scott Lucas schrieb: +More > Quickly... > > Per Webster: > > of, relating to, or constituting evolutionary change on genetic > recombination involving diverse interbreeding populations. > Wilbert Hetterscheid schrieb: >3) Bernhard Strolka: at this moment a PhD student in Leiden (Netherlands) is >studying the genus Amorphophallus at the molecular level. He is putting >Amorphophalli, -uses, -us in the blender by the dozens.... >Cheers, >Wilbert > StroWi@t-online.de sind: Traud Winkelmann, Bernhard, Onno und Konrad Strolka Ansgarweg 33 D - 23879 M?lln Germany

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2000.04.30 at 18:29:04(4484) To All Friends, My little bit of input into this--no one has as yet touched deeply on Mother Nature`s strategies for PREVENTING hybrids, this is what interests me, and investigations on this aspect should be continued. It is obvious that hybrids are not occurring as 'regularly' as they should be among species that occur naturally and in close proximity to each other in nature, and that there are STRONG barriers that prevent this, such as different pollen structure/size (as in Xanthosoma/Caladium/Chlorospatha), with the unanswered question of pollenators thrown into this mix for good measure). As a boy I`ll never forget discussing the 'why' of orchid hybrids with one of my early mentors, Dr Jack Price, a Canadian who 'went native' and lived in a shack near to a river in the hills, hand-to-mouth at times, working at the Virus Lab at others. He grew some orchids, and the genus Catasetum was one I liked. On Trinidad we have two species, C. macrocarpum and C. barbatum, hybrids of these have not been found in the wild state, but a simple hand pollination will result in a seed pod with viable seed, and Jack had grown some hybrid seed in flasks, the offspring as expected were 1/2 way between the parents. Then another Catasetum researcher arrived, and I was helping him find these two species growing in the wild, when I asked how come they do not cross in nature. With a smug smile he took two small bottles of liquid from his back pack, then pinned two small squares of blotting paper only feet apart on neighboring trees. He applied a drop of liquid on each square from each bottle. In seconds there were groups of small stingless bees around the squares, but it was quite clear that the two groups of bees were of different colors and differed slightly in size!! The liquid was artificial lab-produced scent of each of the two species, and he was investigating the artificial production of orchid scents in the Lab. What he had put out was the lab-produced scents of the two Catasetum sps in question, and the bees were specifically attracted ONLY to the scent of that specific orchid! NO hybrids of those in the wild! Now I know this does not always hold true, that obvious hybrids are sometimes and rarely found in the wild, the obvious one in Trinidad is the very rare orchid Oncidium 'haematocyllum' (spelling?) a plant that was initially described as a species, but turned out to be a naturally occurring hybrid between our 'Cedros bee' and the 'brown bee' orchids. In aroids we need to study the pollinators and scents that PREVENT the crossing of species that occur close together, such as Amorphophallus, this may lead to a better understanding of the species concept. In Urospatha, the scents of plants that I grew differed from each other, and though all were or seemed 'fruity'. One from the Orinoco Delta smelt of slightly 'off/old' fruit salad, while the one from Costa Rica smelt of cantaloupe or the old dried skins/remains of mangoes. These were easily 'crossed' with a little help of a wet brush and a helping hand, and the offspring were 1/2 way between 'mum' and 'dad'. I would love a field researcher to investigate the species/groups of this genus that may occur close together in nature, and check the scents they produce and the pollinators involved which keep them apart, and recognizable as different species, the same in the genus Dracontium, where several species occur together, some with tall petioles and wide open spathes, others with close-to-the-ground, partially closed spathes. Some smell of OLD rotten meat, others of just newer, just slightly 'off' meat, others smell of fish, etc., which we could speculate attract different pollinators, meat wasps to some, blow flies to others, etc.. Just one more piece of the giant jig-saw puzzle of life. Cheers and good growing, Julius +More > Just don' t see a point why human beings should "improve" plants in > only few years what nature has developed in millions of years ... I > enjoy nature the way it is and so hopefully my children will have the > opportunity ... > > To all a nice weekend, > > Bj?rn Malkmus >>There are many, many ,many 'points' why humans should and do "improve" plants on mother nature. Nature is not perfect. Some examples of why people have and do produce hybrids ALL VALID. The most valuable use of hybrids to humans is undoubtedly agricultural. I like my corn on the cob to be bigger than my thumb! Some times a plant that is desirable is not easily grown. Sometimes some of these desirable traits may be crossed onto a kindred species which is easier to grow. ( Anth. dressleri is hard to grow in Florida, but it's hybrids are grown very well there) Curiosity is a good enough reason to make cut flowers last longer, to make vegetables bigger, tastier, and or more productive and resistant to desease. Even though someone said this is 'old hat' , hybrids can be used to show inter specific or intergeneric relationships. The list can go on but I think my point is clear. the improvement of plants through hybridization is a valid , and even necessary part of our existence. I too enjoy nature the way it is and personally prefer to collect species.....but I believe there are many valid opinions for and against hybridization. I just don't see that these opinions should be mutually exclusive of each other. People are going to hybridize plants because they can and I doubt that it will ever, ever stop. As John Banta always points out......The genes of some species now only exist in the hybrids they parented. The recombination of genes happens in the course of nature.....I don't separate the actions of humans from nature. Humans and their actions are inseparable from nature. I have never understood why people think that our actions and brains separate us from nature. We are just as answerable to natures laws as every other thing. Neil<<

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2000.05.01 at 00:29:59(4490) Dear all, After Wilbert's "5-printed-pages" message, I don't have much to add. I just have some VERY personal opinions: 1. Hybridisation is mostly for fun, aesthetics (I usually hate hybrids, but people use to like it) and, obviously, for commercial purpouses. If you want to study plants, look for them in the wild! 2. To keep a good source for hybridisation experiments is a good excuse for preserve natural "species". Why not use it? When you visit a tropical country, and see how fast "we" are destroying our natural resources, you would understand that all potential useful strategy are pretty welcome. 3. Most hybrids are aberrants and wouldn't survive in the wild, because pollinators, dispersors and other important parts of their life history wouldn't recognize those weird plants. Whatever, hybrids are usually delighted very far from the origin of the used species. Anthurium hybrids in Holland or Florida won't spread around there and "compete" with natural species. Fortunately, the "hybrids nuts" are usually very far from the natural "source species"! Nobody wants to make hybrids of Peltandra, Orontium, Lysichiton, Calla (the true) or Symplocarpus! 4. Reticulation is a term we use to define the crossing of two different "species" (whatever it means), following by the stabilisation of the genome (usually by polyploidy). If you try to wonder the species arising (in an evolutive sense) like branches of a tree, reticulation is when two branches fuse in only one. That's why it is called "reticulation". The tree would look like a net of branches. At a first glance, we just can't define if a quoted species is a product of reticulation or if it evolved like Darwin showed us. And it is possible that such phenomenon is much more common than we thought before. But Wilbert was very correct in his comment: We don't need this information to recognize "species", unless we change our morpho-anatomical concept for a molecular-statistical approach. I think it would take some time to occur (not much) and certainly will cause much more pain! 5. I agree with Bjoern that artificial hybrids are against nature. But, in my opinion, civilization is against nature! You just can't stop it... 6. If you love natural species, instead of cry against hybrids, try to use your romantic strength to fight against destruction of natural landscapes. Remember that the main diversity of aroids are not at the European or American greenhouses, but in the forests, marshes and savannas here in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Central America, Southeastern Asia and tropical Africa, as well as many other places. They are dissappearing fast. And it is not a problem of those countries exclusively, because some things are unique and all mankind will lose them. A good example is Gearum. The occurrence of Gearum seems to be somewhat restricted and during the last two years, the whole region is becoming a huge soybean plantation. Since we don't eat soybean at a regular basis in Brazil, those plantations are for exportation to the richer countries. See, we can't preserve it by ourselves, because it depends on other countries. Like Brazilians say, in these cases the money screams louder! Take a look at the last Aroideana issue and you will agree that Gearum shouldn't dissapear forever. No living plant should! Tenham todos uma boa semana, (Have a nice week) Eduardo +More ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From: Don Martinson llmen at execpc.com> on 2000.05.01 at 02:52:04(4493) >-----Original Message----- >From: Neil Carroll To All Friends, > >My little bit of input into this--no one has as yet touched deeply on Mother >Nature`s strategies for PREVENTING hybrids, this is what interests me, > +More >... the bees were specifically >attracted ONLY to the scent of that specific orchid! I've often joked with friends that the difference in smell between the flower of my Amorphophallus konjac and Typhonium (=Sauromatum) gutattum is like the difference between cat and dog . In nature, parasites are often quite species specific and it should come as no surprise that there might be differences in preferences of the type of in which insects may lay their eggs. Perhaps there is some type of species-specific mimicry at work here. -- Don Martinson Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mailto:llmen@execpc.com

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2000.05.01 at 23:42:29(4494) >-----Original Message----- >From: Neil Carroll To All Friends, > >My little bit of input into this--no one has as yet touched deeply on Mother +More >Nature`s strategies for PREVENTING hybrids, this is what interests me, > >... the bees were specifically >attracted ONLY to the scent of that specific orchid! >>>I've often joked with friends that the difference in smell between the flower of my Amorphophallus konjac and Typhonium (=Sauromatum) gutattum is like the difference between cat and dog . In nature, parasites are often quite species specific and it should come as no surprise that there might be differences in preferences of the type of in which insects may lay their eggs. Perhaps there is some type of species-specific mimicry at work here.<<< Dear Don, EXACTLY!! See my note on the ideas about the possible pollenators of Dracontium near the end of my note. And by the way, there in fact at least one group of dung beetles that in fact ARE specific to different animals excrement in the Neotropical jungle, and years ago when I was studying one genus, Phaenus, the rarest was only trapped if I ate a large fish meal the day before I provided the 'bait' for my trap! To obtain another species, bait had to be 'made' by eating ripe fruit and hanging the trap high, as these fed only on monkey dung which stayed on leaves and limbs on its way down to the forest floor, where yet another related but different group of beetles disposed of it! All collectors should collect, note and more importantly observe which insects are attracted to the blooms of all Aroids in the wild during their scent production period. Cheers, Julius -- Don Martinson Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mailto:llmen@execpc.com

From: moto_do at t-online.de (Thomas Mottl) on 2000.05.01 at 23:45:53(4500) Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not perfect. What is not perfect in Nature? +More Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? Thanks in advance Thomas

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2000.05.01 at 23:46:53(4501) Howdee, Let's see if I can interpolate some silly remarks here for Eduardo......... > Dear all, > > After Wilbert's "5-printed-pages" message, I don't have much to add. I > just have some VERY personal opinions: > > 1. Hybridisation is mostly for fun, aesthetics (I usually hate hybrids, but +More > people use to like it) and, obviously, for commercial purpouses. If you want > to study plants, look for them in the wild! Agreed. Although I took the liberty of having wild plants grow in greenhouses. Is that o.k. with you? > > 2. To keep a good source for hybridisation experiments is a good excuse for > preserve natural "species". Why not use it? When you visit a tropical > country, and see how fast "we" are destroying our natural resources, you > would understand that all potential useful strategy are pretty welcome. Somehow I fail to see what hybridisation in cultivation contributes to preservation? Care to explain? > 4. Reticulation is a term we use to define the crossing of two different > "species" (whatever it means), following by the stabilisation of the genome > (usually by polyploidy). If you try to wonder the species arising (in an > evolutive sense) like branches of a tree, reticulation is when two branches > fuse in only one. That's why it is called "reticulation". The tree would > look like a net of branches. At a first glance, we just can't define if a > quoted species is a product of reticulation or if it evolved like Darwin > showed us. And it is possible that such phenomenon is much more common than > we thought before. But Wilbert was very correct in his comment: We don't > need this information to recognize "species", unless we change our > morpho-anatomical concept for a molecular-statistical approach. I think it > would take some time to occur (not much) and certainly will cause much more > pain! I might even add, that reticulate processes of hybridisation may lead to populations that exhibit unique feature-combinations not found in the parental species and hence may start their own evolutionary "life" and be good species in whatever sense of the word. I guess this is basically the kernel of the "evolutionary Species Concept", which sounds much "sounder" to me than Mayrs Biological Species Concept. Bla, bla, bla...... > > 5. I agree with Bjoern that artificial hybrids are against nature. But, in > my opinion, civilization is against nature! You just can't stop it... Ah, this is great. Civilisation is against nature. Glad to hear somebody say this. I don't know if I would formulate it this drastically but it is what I said about the difference between "chance" hybridisation in nature and "intentional" hybridisation in civilisation. Eduardo, I get the feeling you agree with me more than your previous message led me to believe. > > 6. If you love natural species, instead of cry against hybrids, try to use > your romantic strength to fight against destruction of natural landscapes. I hope you're not saying this to me because I am NOT against artificial hybrids, as I wrote. Hell, I even used Pinellia 'Polly Spout' as an example. > Remember that the main diversity of aroids are not at the European or > American greenhouses, but in the forests, marshes and savannas here in > Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Central America, Southeastern > Asia and tropical Africa, as well as many other places. I guess you may have to be careful here in distinguishing "natural" diversity (= biodiversity) and artificial greenhouse diversity. I guess in aroids the number of cultivars (making up the culto-diversity) may still be smaller than the number of species representing the natural aroid diversity, but this may change. Look at Gerbera. Anywhere between 2 and 10 species making up the biodiversity and thousands of cultivars making up the culto-diversity. But as I said, the two are incomparable in an essential way. They are > dissappearing fast. And it is not a problem of those countries exclusively, > because some things are unique and all mankind will lose them. A good > example is Gearum. The occurrence of Gearum seems to be somewhat restricted > and during the last two years, the whole region is becoming a huge soybean > plantation. Since we don't eat soybean at a regular basis in Brazil, those > plantations are for exportation to the richer countries. See, we can't > preserve it by ourselves, because it depends on other countries. Like > Brazilians say, in these cases the money screams louder! Take a look at the > last Aroideana issue and you will agree that Gearum shouldn't dissapear > forever. No living plant should! You are such a romantic!! But I guess you're right that natural resources are exploited and probably mostly so by "rich countries". And what are you, as a person living IN an "exploited" country, going to do about it? Tell others to keep their hands off? That won't work. Tell your government to keep others out and try to establish your own useful system of exploitation that may also hold a preservation component (NOT shifting cultivation but sustainable agriculture etc.). It's your call! Rich countries cannot exploit other countries if they are not "helped" from within by corrupt governments or corrupt civil servants etc. Have a nice week too, Wilbert

From: plantnut at macconnect.com (plantnut) on 2000.05.02 at 02:38:39(4505) Thomas, You have left yourself wide open for this one......... Perfect??? +More ..... Just look at me!!!!...... Dewey P.S.... Sorry to all the rest of you good folks.... but, I just could not resist.... >Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not >perfect. >What is not perfect in Nature? >Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? >Thanks in advance >Thomas Dewey E. Fisk, Plant Nut THE PHILODENDRON PHREAQUE

From: plantnut at macconnect.com (plantnut) on 2000.05.02 at 02:39:25(4506) Regarding civilization.... and cultivation... A friend of mine put it very well when she said..... "When God invented plants.... K-Mart was closed and He couldn't get any pots....." Now you know the reason they grow in the 'wild'. Dewey +More >> 5. I agree with Bjoern that artificial hybrids are against nature. But, in >> my opinion, civilization is against nature! You just can't stop it... > >Ah, this is great. Civilisation is against nature. Glad to hear somebody say >this. I don't know if I would formulate it this drastically but it is what I >said about the difference between "chance" hybridisation in nature and >"intentional" hybridisation in civilisation. Eduardo, I get the feeling you >agree with me more than your previous message led me to believe. Dewey E. Fisk, Plant Nut THE PHILODENDRON PHREAQUE

From: "Jay Vannini" interbnk at infovia.com.gt> on 2000.05.02 at 02:40:10(4507) Julius: Excellent observation on the VERY specific tastes of many insects! Now, if you really want to get into esoteric baits, talk to the tropical butterfly people... While wandering around my garden this morning with a cup of coffee I was tickled to see "mass" aggregations of male Eulaema sp. (cingulata?) on four or five receptive Anthurium huixtlense spadices (three mature plants). This was really quite impressive - literally standing room only for many dozens of these bumble-bee sized velvet black euglossines with shiny gold abdomens. Curiously, I also have a number of A. armeniense and A. chiapasense that are also in various stages of flowering right now, and they do not appear to attract these bees but rather, a sorta nondescript Trigona species. BTW - I have, on many occasions during the rainy season, observed some type of nocturnal, "haemophagus-looking" dipteran clearly attracted to the nectar secreted by my Anthurium andreanum 'Kansako' plants. They appear to be very engrossed in tubing up nectar when I have put a light on them. Anyhoots - neat stuff - I suppose this is one of many reasons to grow tropical plants in the tropics. Cheerio - Jay +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:42 PM Subject: Re: Hybrids > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Martinson > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > Date: Sunday, April 30, 2000 10:52 PM > Subject: Re: Hybrids > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Neil Carroll To All Friends, > > > >My little bit of input into this--no one has as yet touched deeply on > Mother > >Nature`s strategies for PREVENTING hybrids, this is what interests me, > > > > >... the bees were specifically > >attracted ONLY to the scent of that specific orchid! > > > >>>I've often joked with friends that the difference in smell between > the flower of my Amorphophallus konjac and Typhonium (=Sauromatum) > gutattum is like the difference between cat and dog > . In nature, parasites are often quite species specific > and it should come as no surprise that there might be differences in > preferences of the type of in which insects may lay their > eggs. Perhaps there is some type of species-specific mimicry at work > here.<<< > > Dear Don, > > EXACTLY!! See my note on the ideas about the possible pollenators of > Dracontium near the end of my note. And by the way, there in fact at least > one group of dung beetles that in fact ARE specific to different animals > excrement in the Neotropical jungle, and years ago when I was studying one > genus, Phaenus, the rarest was only trapped if I ate a large fish meal the > day before I provided the 'bait' for my trap! To obtain another species, > bait had to be 'made' by eating ripe fruit and hanging the trap high, as > these fed only on monkey dung which stayed on leaves and limbs on its way > down to the forest floor, where yet another related but different group of > beetles disposed of it! > > All collectors should collect, note and more importantly observe which > insects are attracted to the blooms of all Aroids in the wild during their > scent production period. > > Cheers, > > Julius > > -- > Don Martinson > Milwaukee, Wisconsin > Mailto:llmen@execpc.com > > > >

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.05.02 at 02:50:14(4509) > Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not > perfect. > What is not perfect in Nature? +More > Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? > Thanks in advance > Thomas > > > I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that the word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is different. One plant example: ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out. this is not perfect. Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections. As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word such as 'perfect'. Neil

From: moto_do at t-online.de (Thomas Mottl) on 2000.05.02 at 21:56:14(4510) May a strange discussion, maybe somewhat philosophical I did not know but now I feel that I must secrete some thoughts maybe you think some diarrhoe... 1.) In my opinion there is no perfect plan or master plan or whatever existing. 2.) In my opinion evolution is a chaotical process with coming and going of new combinations of genes whatever they produce some with more succes some with less. 3.) In my opinion the human species is only a part of the evolution and all what human kind make or will do is than also only a part of the game and could not be separated. Because evolution for me means try and error as long till it fits for the environment where the "game is played". For example Anth. dressleri is "perfect" in his natural habitat now at the moment untill the environment changes(affected by whatever). Or another example. Many species of the Australian fauna where "perfect" untill humans import rabbits, so the new species is somewhat more perfect for the Australian environment and as a result all other affected species which have no place to live will die. Or the young oak tree without chlorophyll it is not perfect in that environment but when you do the same maybe in a laboratory it will work and it lives than it would be perfect. (don?t say it is not natural it is only a somewhat different environment created by a species which is part of the nature the same what Ants do when they grow funghi). Or is a Banana plant not perfect while it did?nt grow on north pole only in a tropical environment? And who knows maybe in some million years all plants are without chlorophyll and grow in some other way when nature made uncountable experiments and one of them will work and produce as a result a new species which is more "perfect" and displace the now existing green plants. That is in my eyes the other problem with evolution and perfectness. Our lives are to short that we could registrate the evolution of new species, we only registrate the dying of old species by fast changes of environment(most affected by human kind). So maybe the game will go on and human kind has changed the environment so dramtically that it will die itself but is that the end of evolution? Sure not some million years later we will surely found thousands of new species and they will be again "perfect" adapt to the environment existing at that time. Also now by making hybrids or transgentic lifeforms we are giving the nature great input for new combinations of genes whatever the results are, nature will be affected but never destroyed only environment changes. So for me is every lifeform which lives now at the moment on earth perfect in its very own way and also in my opinion we haven?t the right to judge over a lifeform if it is perfect or not. The evolution will make this decision. So Dewey is right when he says that he is perfect and it is no joke. Hope it is somewhat understandable cause as a none native speaker ist is hard to explain in a foreign language. Thomas +More -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: aroid-l@mobot.org [mailto:aroid-l@mobot.org]Im Auftrag von Neil Carroll Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Mai 2000 04:49 An: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Betreff: Re: Hybrids > Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not > perfect. > What is not perfect in Nature? > Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? > Thanks in advance > Thomas > > > I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that the word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is different. One plant example: ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out. this is not perfect. Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections. As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word such as 'perfect'. Neil

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.05.02 at 21:57:00(4511) > While wandering around my garden this morning with a cup of coffee I was > tickled to see "mass" aggregations of male Eulaema sp. (cingulata?) on four +More > or five receptive Anthurium huixtlense spadices (three mature plants). This > was really quite impressive - literally standing room only for many dozens > of these bumble-bee sized velvet black euglossines with shiny gold abdomens. > Curiously, I also have a number of A. armeniense and A. chiapasense that are > also in various stages of flowering right now, and they do not appear to > attract these bees but rather, a sorta nondescript Trigona species. Jay, I often stick my nose in the flowers of my plants and take a whiff. Your observation of euglossine bees on A. huixtlense makes sense to me. The aroma from huixtlense ( I have the pink spadix form blooming right now) does remind me of what you might smell coming from the flowers of the orchid genus Gongora. Gongora are famous for their very species specific pollinators.......euglossine bees. These smells might varoiusly be described as acetone, spicey, or eucalyptus like. I do not have A. armeniense to compare but I do have A. chiapasense and it has a distinct ordor somewhat like fermenting grapes. In my greenhouse here the spadix of A. chiapasense attracts various gnats and flies. Related to A. chiapasense is A. lucens and A. longipeltatum both of which have the 'fermenting grape' smell. The fragrances of orchids has long been studied. I think Anthurium exhibits a wide range of fragrances and I imagine attracts a wide range of pollinators. Some I have observed in my greenhouse...fruity, spicey, cherry halls cough drop ( on one of J. Bantas hybrids called 'Kiwi'), eucalyptus, fermented fruit ( grapes), soapy, rotten ( nothing as bad as the genus Amorphophallus though) I find it all very interesting. neil

From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.05.02 at 21:58:04(4513) Neil Carrol wrote about hybrids and I have to say that one of our clones of Anthurium dressleri, which is a selfing of the clonotype, grows far easier than the original plant collected from the wild. Sometimes selection via sibling crosses or selfing of species can provide some additional vigor or horticultural improvements not known in the parent(s). One does not necessarily need to resort to hybridizing different species to get interesting results. It is also true that the hybrids of Anthurium dressleri are indeed much easier to grow and some of these hybrids are exceptional clones. +More Donna Atwood << Some times a plant that is desirable is not easily grown. Sometimes some of these desirable traits may be crossed onto a kindred species which is easier to grow. ( Anth. dressleri is hard to grow in Florida, but it's hybrids are grown very well there) >>

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2000.05.02 at 22:00:00(4518) Thomas, Iw Neill who said that and I never agreed. My point in this special topic would be: by what standards do we qualify nature in terms of "perfect" or not. I don't think I'd know a useful answer to that. Well, aroids are perfect..........for one. Face it: some look perfect, others are perfectly boring, some smell perfect, others smell perfectly bad. What more do we want? Wilbert +More ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: dinsdag 2 mei 2000 1:45 Subject: Re: Hybrids > Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not > perfect. > What is not perfect in Nature? > Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? > Thanks in advance > Thomas > > > >

From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.05.02 at 22:00:16(4519) Neil makes a good point. Imperfection in nature (as mutations) gives rise to much of the species diversity that we see. Natural hybridization may do this as well as drift and other documented paths of evolution. Donna Atwood +More << I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that the word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is different. One plant example: ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out. this is not perfect. Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections. As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word such as 'perfect'. >>

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2000.05.03 at 23:54:48(4527) Dear Jay, Thanks for the kind words--what you describe is what I miss most of all while living here, the lack of the tropical jungle insects/contacts. >Julius: +More Excellent observation on the VERY specific tastes of many insects! Now, if you really want to get into esoteric baits, talk to the tropical butterfly people...< I know!! Really enjoyed reading about your observations, you lucky guy!! Now for a few more of my inane ramblings--In T`dad we have several genera and species of Brassolids (the huge 'owl' butterflies), and the males have scent glands which they use in courtship/combat 'dances' at dusk. As a boy I`d wait in the growing gloaming at the side of a jungle stream among the Spathiphyllums, Dieffenbachias and Helliconias for them, the giant Caligos with parchment-sounding wing-beats, to come to me, and one could smell them before you saw them!! They would meet and swirl around and around in their mad courtship flights, and even now, 40 years later, I can 'pull up' the memory of this scent! The hair on the nape of my neck rises as I recall this! I always wondered what the males used to feed on that allowed them to produce this very musty, bat-like smell. I noted that the different species produced slightly different scents by which I could tell them apart. A related genus is Opsiphanes, and one of the two species found on T`dad is O. cassinia, it`s larva feed on palms, and the adult males smell STRONGLY of vanilla! The other slightly larger species, O.cassiculus, has no scent. NOW--- in the Amaz. of E. Ecuador, the first species will and does feed on fresh human excrement, and around the oil rigs that I worked on you did NOT want to sample the smell of a male when you caught one!! My question was, I KNOW what causes the Ecuadorian specimens to smell bad, but what could cause the T`dadian specimens of the SAME butterfly to smell so GOOD!!!??? THIS is why we need more field observations on all of nature, as it is fast being destroyed, as Eduardo so eloquently pointed out!! (By the way, we could tell when a person on the rig had diabetes, as the 'sweat bees' and butterflies would single out his urine 'spot' and concentrate on it!) Hope that this note does not bore the purists amongst us! Cheers and good growing, Julius >While wandering around my garden this morning with a cup of coffee I was tickled to see "mass" aggregations of male Eulaema sp. (cingulata?) on four or five receptive Anthurium huixtlense spadices (three mature plants). This was really quite impressive - literally standing room only for many dozens of these bumble-bee sized velvet black euglossines with shiny gold abdomens. Curiously, I also have a number of A. armeniense and A. chiapasense that are also in various stages of flowering right now, and they do not appear to attract these bees but rather, a sorta nondescript Trigona species. BTW - I have, on many occasions during the rainy season, observed some type of nocturnal, "haemophagus-looking" dipteran clearly attracted to the nectar secreted by my Anthurium andreanum 'Kansako' plants. They appear to be very engrossed in tubing up nectar when I have put a light on them. Anyhoots - neat stuff - I suppose this is one of many reasons to grow tropical plants in the tropics. Cheerio - Jay<< ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:42 PM Subject: Re: Hybrids > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Martinson > To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > Date: Sunday, April 30, 2000 10:52 PM > Subject: Re: Hybrids > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Neil Carroll To All Friends, > > > >My little bit of input into this--no one has as yet touched deeply on > Mother > >Nature`s strategies for PREVENTING hybrids, this is what interests me, > > > > >... the bees were specifically > >attracted ONLY to the scent of that specific orchid! > > > >>>I've often joked with friends that the difference in smell between > the flower of my Amorphophallus konjac and Typhonium (=Sauromatum) > gutattum is like the difference between cat and dog > . In nature, parasites are often quite species specific > and it should come as no surprise that there might be differences in > preferences of the type of in which insects may lay their > eggs. Perhaps there is some type of species-specific mimicry at work > here.<<< > > Dear Don, > > EXACTLY!! See my note on the ideas about the possible pollenators of > Dracontium near the end of my note. And by the way, there in fact at least > one group of dung beetles that in fact ARE specific to different animals > excrement in the Neotropical jungle, and years ago when I was studying one > genus, Phaenus, the rarest was only trapped if I ate a large fish meal the > day before I provided the 'bait' for my trap! To obtain another species, > bait had to be 'made' by eating ripe fruit and hanging the trap high, as > these fed only on monkey dung which stayed on leaves and limbs on its way > down to the forest floor, where yet another related but different group of > beetles disposed of it! > > All collectors should collect, note and more importantly observe which > insects are attracted to the blooms of all Aroids in the wild during their > scent production period. > > Cheers, > > Julius > > -- > Don Martinson > Milwaukee, Wisconsin > Mailto:llmen@execpc.com > > > >

From: "Bonaventure W Magrys" magrysbo at shu.edu> on 2000.05.03 at 23:57:33(4530) Can't put these back in nature with the same sucess. This is not the original (but it is within variation) characteristic of the species. Reestablishment of "improved" cultivars may lead to improper growth timing, reduced seed dormancy, ect... Larger more colorful flowers may also not be as attractive to the natural pollinator as they are to the human eye. Bonaventure +More >>>>>>>>>SelbyHort@aol.com on 05/02/2000 05:58:10 PM Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L cc: (bcc: Bonaventure W Magrys/ADM/SHU) Subject: Re: Hybrids Neil Carrol wrote about hybrids and I have to say that one of our clones of Anthurium dressleri, which is a selfing of the clonotype, grows far easier than the original plant collected from the wild. Sometimes selection via sibling crosses or selfing of species can provide some additional vigor or horticultural improvements not known in the parent(s). One does not necessarily need to resort to hybridizing different species to get interesting results. It is also true that the hybrids of Anthurium dressleri are indeed much easier to grow and some of these hybrids are exceptional clones. Donna Atwood << Some times a plant that is desirable is not easily grown. Sometimes some of these desirable traits may be crossed onto a kindred species which is easier to grow. ( Anth. dressleri is hard to grow in Florida, but it's hybrids are grown very well there) >>

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2000.05.04 at 00:33:58(4536) > May a strange discussion, maybe somewhat philosophical I did not know but > now I feel that I must secrete some thoughts maybe you think some > diarrhoe... +More > 1.) In my opinion there is no perfect plan or master plan or whatever > existing. > 2.) In my opinion evolution is a chaotical process with coming and going of > new combinations of genes whatever they produce some with more succes some > with less. > 3.) In my opinion the human species is only a part of the evolution and all > what human kind make or will do is than also only a part of the game and > could not be separated. I think you're making the error of thinking in terms of "physical" separation versus what I meant to say, and that is "contextual separation". Of course, as long as things are happening and developing and dying on our little planet, we could say that it is all part of nature and cannot be "taken out" or is always part of the causality chain of things happening on earth. But you can perfectly separate phenomena in your mind, classify them and make statements specifically about them, in a way isolated from all other things happening around us. THAT is what I was proposing for the nomenclature of cultivated plants. The context is human civilisation and the goal is to make statements about the classification of man-made plant groups (e.g. cultivars) in relation to the needs of humans for these special-purpose plant groups. I can do that by separating cultivars from the context of plants living in the wild. I am not bound to consider the latter because they are not part of the problem (context) I am addressing. > Because evolution for me means try and error as long till it fits for the > environment where the "game is played". For example Anth. dressleri is > "perfect" in his natural habitat now at the moment untill the environment > changes(affected by whatever). > Or another example. Many species of the Australian fauna where "perfect" > untill humans import rabbits, so the new species is somewhat more perfect > for the Australian environment and as a result all other affected species > which have no place to live will die. > Or the young oak tree without chlorophyll it is not perfect in that > environment but when you do the same maybe in a laboratory it will work and > it lives than it would be perfect. (don?t say it is not natural it is only a > somewhat different environment created by a species which is part of the > nature the same what Ants do when they grow funghi). You've missed the point obviously. The point is that when we do maintain/perpetuate that chlorophyll-like oak in competition-free circumstances, pamper it etc., do we want to talk about it as, say Quercus robur and do we include these plants in the life-history of Quercus robur? No, we include this plant in the life history of mankind and say that we artificially maintained that particular clone and hence give it a name to SEPARATE it from ordinary Quercus robus, e.g. as Q. robur 'White Surprise'. In doing this we implicitly change the status of that mutated plant from a "natural" object, to a "special purpose" object. And "special purpose" is something unique to humans. > Or is a Banana plant not perfect while it did?nt grow on north pole only in > a tropical environment? > And who knows maybe in some million years all plants are without chlorophyll > and grow in some other way when nature made uncountable experiments and one > of them will work and produce as a result a new species which is more > "perfect" and displace the now existing green plants. I don't think it is anywhere realistic to base ideas on "Who knows what lies ahead". That is ad hoc and has no place in debates about the world around us. Even though scientists may always think "Who knows, maybe in the future I'll be proven wrong", they won't stop expressing their ideas as they are based on current observations. > That is in my eyes the other problem with evolution and perfectness. Our > lives are to short that we could registrate the evolution of new species, we > only registrate the dying of old species by fast changes of environment(most > affected by human kind). So maybe the game will go on and human kind has > changed the environment so dramtically that it will die itself but is that > the end of evolution? Sure not some million years later we will surely found > thousands of new species and they will be again "perfect" adapt to the > environment existing at that time. Sure, that may be, but what does it prove? That we can never make statements about what we see today? Not hypothesize about it? > Also now by making hybrids or transgentic lifeforms we are giving the nature > great input for new combinations of genes whatever the results are, nature > will be affected but never destroyed only environment changes. But isn't it hard for you to accept then, that so many people want to STOP the "leaking" of transgenic genomic combinations into nature!! Isn't that the perfect example of what I have been saying all the time? Obviously many of us are intrinsically feeling that what we do is beyond nature. I am not advocating that view right away, but it gives foundation for a view that separates our intentional actions from the random stuff that nature seems to be doing. > So for me is every lifeform which lives now at the moment on earth perfect > in its very own way and also in my opinion we haven?t the right to judge > over a lifeform if it is perfect or not. That I agree with. The evolution will make this > decision. > So Dewey is right when he says that he is perfect and it is no joke. Come again.......? Cheers, Wilbert > > Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not > > perfect. > > What is not perfect in Nature? > > Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind? > > Thanks in advance > > Thomas > > > > > > > I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that the > word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is > different. > > One plant example: ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no > chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out. > > this is not perfect. > > Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections. > As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word > such as 'perfect'. > > Neil > > > >

From: "Bonaventure W Magrys" magrysbo at shu.edu> on 2000.05.05 at 02:48:58(4537) "Perfect" organisms don't evolve. They are so well adapted (to their particular environment) that they do not change over the ages. Hence "evelutionary dead-ends" such as the horseshoe crab are more "perfect" than those organisms that had "gone on" (again a misconception of linear progressive [in human terms] +More thinking) towards more complexity, eg the spiders, the butterfly, more "advanced" arthopods all. Conflict, maladaptaiton forces evolution. The ape in the forest, unchanged for 10 million years or more, is not a "lesser" organism than those troops that a few million years ago foraged out into the African savannahs clumsily. BWM

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2000.05.09 at 01:31:00(4546) > "Perfect" organisms don't evolve. They are so well adapted (to their particular > environment) that they do not change over the ages. +More I like to call this nonsense. Do you honestly think that a "perfect" organism never undergoes mutations that may become fixed and lead to a new speciation event? Hah, that would be the day. Hence "evelutionary > dead-ends" such as the horseshoe crab are more "perfect" than those organisms > that had "gone on" (again a misconception of linear progressive [in human > terms] > thinking) towards more complexity, eg the spiders, the butterfly, more > "advanced" arthopods all. I agree with the latter qualification. But I think the entire concept of "perfect organism" is total nonsense. It's a very typical human-centered deterministic attitude. I'd say that it goes back to the Middle Ages. Wilbert

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.