 IAS on Facebook
 IAS on Instagram
|
IAS Aroid Quasi Forum
About Aroid-L
This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.
|
Line breeding vs hybridization
|
From: Iza & Carol Goroff goroff at idcnet.com> on 2001.06.21 at 03:25:40(6778)
My impression is that Symphysodon discus was "improved" by line breeding, not
hybridization. Line breeding is where one selects from a large population those
parents which bring the breeder towards the characteristics s/he finds most
desirable, continuing the selection for many generations. It is this pursuit of
"perfection" which has give rise to the domesticated dog, no longer quite the
wolf. This is commonly done with many kinds of plants, FCCs are given to
outstanding ( by someone's definition) examples of a species. Of course, a pack
of dogs is nothing compared to a pack of wolves. Similarly our "improved" line
bred species are no longer as able to survive in the wild.
Iza Goroff
| +More | |
Whitewater Wisconsin USA
Ron Iles wrote:
> ...But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", arguably the "King" of
> Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the arbitrary & mostly
> undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely specialised creatures
> has produced the most extreme degradation of Nature's nobility & adapted
> biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism.
|
|
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.21 at 16:01:09(6783)
In a message dated 06/20/2001 11:26:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
goroff@idcnet.com writes:
<< My impression is that Symphysodon discus was "improved" by line breeding,
| +More |
not
hybridization. Line breeding is where one selects from a large population
those
parents which bring the breeder towards the characteristics s/he finds most
desirable, continuing the selection for many generations. >>
Dear Iza and Ron,
You're both slightly off the mark. Ron is correct that the modern strains of
aquarium discus are the result of out-crossing between several subspecies of
Symphysodon aequifasciatus (there is little evidence that the second species
S. discus is involved in this effort). But Iza is correct that at this point
in time these "new" strains are frequently being line-bred for many
generations - even though newer outcrosses are still occurring.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the strains are incredibly
beautiful, yet it will be tough to ever perfect upon the subtle colors and
patterns of S. aequifasciatus axelrodi!
Jim Langhammer, retired Curator of Fishes
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.21 at 16:01:36(6785)
Iza, Carol, Bonaventure & Friends
"Line Breeding" is another question which needs always to be addressed. It
commonly involves inbreeding which limits gene pool diversity which is
obviated by intermittent distant outbreeding. Within a species, in
domestication one can accept or not the moral responsibility to select most
carefully & sensitively parents and to outbreed to maximise genetic
diversity. Previously, I only posed the question "Why hybridise?".
Symphysodon & its various "species" have been both hybridised and "line
bred". There are now extreme gaudy" highly un-natural forms which Man has
"improved" and visually "perfected" but which Nature would probably have
extinguished in minutes. Nature's nobility has been defiled. Are you
advocating the breeding of "freaks" for your, their or Nature's sake?!!!
Finless bubble eyed goldfish cripples, guppies with banner tails which can
hardly swim, hairless indoor cats, and delicate dogs with extreme nasal
deformities, garish blooms free of the fragances of their ancestors, are
considered "desirable". Obviously these are just a tiny few of the examples
of Man's arbitrary selection of what is "desirable" with little or no
respect for the natural objective viability, virility & legitimacy of
species.... By trying to "improve" on Nature, it has taken only a few years
for Man to mangle & destroy what Nature has necessarily refined over
millions of years.
When Man as a species is line-bred for perceived excellence & is surrounded
only by the "nice" wild things and the ecologically & evolutionarily
disastrous, how will it be? Because of their evolutionary diversity,
people vary in their ideals, objectives & their concepts of what is
desirable, both "good" & "bad". One has to be cautious in breeding....
For every square foot on Earth there is room for EITHER what Nature has
miraculously refined since the mists of time or what Man has cleverly and
uncleverly mangled in a few "desiring", "improving" years.
There are fundamental ethics which relate to natural global integrity. Why
hybridise?
Ron
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Line breeding vs hybridization
| My impression is that Symphysodon discus was "improved" by line breeding,
not
| hybridization. Line breeding is where one selects from a large population
those
| parents which bring the breeder towards the characteristics s/he finds
most
| desirable, continuing the selection for many generations. It is this
pursuit of
| "perfection" which has give rise to the domesticated dog, no longer quite
the
| wolf. This is commonly done with many kinds of plants, FCCs are given to
| outstanding ( by someone's definition) examples of a species. Of course, a
pack
| of dogs is nothing compared to a pack of wolves. Similarly our "improved"
line
| bred species are no longer as able to survive in the wild.
|
| Iza Goroff
| Whitewater Wisconsin USA
|
| Ron Iles wrote:
|
| > ...But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", arguably the
"King" of
| > Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the arbitrary & mostly
| > undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely specialised
creatures
| > has produced the most extreme degradation of Nature's nobility & adapted
| > biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism.
|
|
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.21 at 16:03:36(6793)
The question then is: is a Canis familiaris actually Canis lupus???? OR is
it Canis lupus 'Dalmatian' and Canis lupus 'Dachshund'?? Or is it Canis
familiaris 'Dalmatian' or Canis familiaris 'Dachshund'? Or plain Canis
'Dalmatian' and Canis 'Dachshund'?
WHAT is the idea of giving the domesticated dog a Latin binomen?? WHAT does
Canis familiaris ACTUALLY mean?
BTW: MOST cultivars of plants are NOT line-bred but hybridised extensively.
And even a line-bred result is a cultivar NOT a species. And to boot: Nature
does NOT line-breed with a pre-set goal.
Wilbert
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 5:25
Subject: Line breeding vs hybridization
> My impression is that Symphysodon discus was "improved" by line breeding,
not
> hybridization. Line breeding is where one selects from a large population
those
> parents which bring the breeder towards the characteristics s/he finds
most
> desirable, continuing the selection for many generations. It is this
pursuit of
> "perfection" which has give rise to the domesticated dog, no longer quite
the
> wolf. This is commonly done with many kinds of plants, FCCs are given to
> outstanding ( by someone's definition) examples of a species. Of course, a
pack
> of dogs is nothing compared to a pack of wolves. Similarly our "improved"
line
> bred species are no longer as able to survive in the wild.
>
> Iza Goroff
> Whitewater Wisconsin USA
>
> Ron Iles wrote:
>
> > ...But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", arguably the
"King" of
> > Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the arbitrary & mostly
> > undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely specialised
creatures
> > has produced the most extreme degradation of Nature's nobility & adapted
> > biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism.
>
>
|
|
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.21 at 20:11:37(6806)
in the u.s. lately, more and more scientists see that not only there's no distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also the same species.
In a message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:03:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
| +More |
<< The question then is: is a Canis familiaris actually Canis lupus???? OR is
it Canis lupus 'Dalmatian' and Canis lupus 'Dachshund'?? Or is it Canis
familiaris 'Dalmatian' or Canis familiaris 'Dachshund'? Or plain Canis
'Dalmatian' and Canis 'Dachshund'?
WHAT is the idea of giving the domesticated dog a Latin binomen?? WHAT does
Canis familiaris ACTUALLY mean?
BTW: MOST cultivars of plants are NOT line-bred but hybridised extensively.
And even a line-bred result is a cultivar NOT a species. And to boot: Nature
does NOT line-breed with a pre-set goal.
Wilbert >>
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.21 at 20:12:24(6809)
Dear Jim,
Wonderful to have your wisdom.
The choice of Symphysodon in retrospect now seems apt. As a species with
narrow environmental tolerances from in-numerable habitats in a massive
area, it seems critical to keep forms, sub-species, strains, from the
countless wild locations distinct. Given the systems of collection &
exportation, this is at least difficult. Countless different strains of
"brighter" fishes selected from all over the undefined wild are used
"domestically" to interbreed and then inbreed (line-breed) even brighter
"hybrids" with no known pedigrees or common origins. The innumerable "wild"
strains are not domestically pure bred in communities. Genetic integrity is
lost from the moment of collection.
I submit that the genus exemplifies how sub-species & ecological niche
integrity is irretrievably lost on a vast scale before hybridisation.
This is the way I view the distressing unconcern of some animal culture &
horticulture for either the origin or plight of wild species. If the
security of wild species IS assured I care not whether or not they are
hybridised or inbred or both. I do love the best German "hybrid" strains
and both two wild species but I detest the gaudy designer Discus which
retain little of the aristocracy of their more ancient ancestry.
Which species of Spathiphyllum do they still grow in the Aquarium?
Sincerely
| +More | |
|
|
| Dear Iza and Ron,
|
| You're both slightly off the mark. Ron is correct that the modern strains
of
| aquarium discus are the result of out-crossing between several subspecies
of
| Symphysodon aequifasciatus (there is little evidence that the second
species
| S. discus is involved in this effort). But Iza is correct that at this
point
| in time these "new" strains are frequently being line-bred for many
| generations - even though newer outcrosses are still occurring.
|
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the strains are incredibly
| beautiful, yet it will be tough to ever perfect upon the subtle colors and
| patterns of S. aequifasciatus axelrodi!
|
| Jim Langhammer, retired Curator of Fishes
|
|
|
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.22 at 03:18:55(6821)
I know about line breeding in orchids. Example- Rhycholaelia (Brassavola)
digbyana with its hube fimbriated lip but narrow petals crossed with
standard Cattleya types imparts these features to their progeny. By
choosing those with better overall flower form but retaining the frilly lip
each generation of backcrossing to the standards, the form of
Brassocattleyas and Brassolaeliocattleyas can resemble the best standard
pure Cattleya with a lip not found in Cattleya in nature. Color can be bred
in from small insignificant flowers by choosing in each generation of
backcrossing/linebreeding an improved compromise between color and form and
discarding those with good color but poor form and size and also those with
good size and form but original color. Indeed green Bc.'s and Blc.'s with
great Cattleya shape and digbyana improved lip exist - and the heady citrus
fragrance of the distant digbyana ancestor comes through often.
Bonaventure Magrys
| +More | |
"Ron Iles" @mobot.org on 06/21/2001 12:01:42 PM
Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org
Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
cc:
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
Iza, Carol, Bonaventure & Friends
"Line Breeding" is another question which needs always to be addressed.
It
commonly involves inbreeding which limits gene pool diversity which is
obviated by intermittent distant outbreeding. Within a species, in
domestication one can accept or not the moral responsibility to select most
carefully & sensitively parents and to outbreed to maximise genetic
diversity. Previously, I only posed the question "Why hybridise?".
Symphysodon & its various "species" have been both hybridised and "line
bred". There are now extreme gaudy" highly un-natural forms which Man has
"improved" and visually "perfected" but which Nature would probably have
extinguished in minutes. Nature's nobility has been defiled. Are you
advocating the breeding of "freaks" for your, their or Nature's sake?!!!
Finless bubble eyed goldfish cripples, guppies with banner tails which can
hardly swim, hairless indoor cats, and delicate dogs with extreme nasal
deformities, garish blooms free of the fragances of their ancestors, are
considered "desirable". Obviously these are just a tiny few of the
examples
of Man's arbitrary selection of what is "desirable" with little or no
respect for the natural objective viability, virility & legitimacy of
species.... By trying to "improve" on Nature, it has taken only a few
years
for Man to mangle & destroy what Nature has necessarily refined over
millions of years.
When Man as a species is line-bred for perceived excellence & is surrounded
only by the "nice" wild things and the ecologically & evolutionarily
disastrous, how will it be? Because of their evolutionary diversity,
people vary in their ideals, objectives & their concepts of what is
desirable, both "good" & "bad". One has to be cautious in breeding....
For every square foot on Earth there is room for EITHER what Nature has
miraculously refined since the mists of time or what Man has cleverly and
uncleverly mangled in a few "desiring", "improving" years.
There are fundamental ethics which relate to natural global integrity. Why
hybridise?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Line breeding vs hybridization
| My impression is that Symphysodon discus was "improved" by line breeding,
not
| hybridization. Line breeding is where one selects from a large population
those
| parents which bring the breeder towards the characteristics s/he finds
most
| desirable, continuing the selection for many generations. It is this
pursuit of
| "perfection" which has give rise to the domesticated dog, no longer quite
the
| wolf. This is commonly done with many kinds of plants, FCCs are given to
| outstanding ( by someone's definition) examples of a species. Of course,
a
pack
| of dogs is nothing compared to a pack of wolves. Similarly our "improved"
line
| bred species are no longer as able to survive in the wild.
|
| Iza Goroff
| Whitewater Wisconsin USA
|
| Ron Iles wrote:
|
| > ...But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", arguably the
"King" of
| > Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the arbitrary & mostly
| > undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely specialised
creatures
| > has produced the most extreme degradation of Nature's nobility &
adapted
| > biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism.
|
|
|
|
From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2001.06.22 at 05:20:54(6823)
Ron, It is rare that I have read such furious defense of the keeping of
"pure" species and such an aversion to hybridization. I personally am a
species collector because I enjoy the beauty of what I am attracted to. But,
beyond the taxonomists' obvious frustration with hybridizers, I see no
reason to viscously attack those who wish to hybridize. Your point of view
seems to exclude and put "outside of Nature" humans. I can think of no
scenario that excludes humans from nature. We and what we do are intricatly
and inextricably a part of Nature. NO matter how "obscene" you think people
are.
| +More |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like Anthurium but find Spaths
rather banal. I find Amorph. and Dracontium beautiful but know that the
population at large would find them ugly. The plants we enjoy are enjoyed
because of a VISUAL beauty we find in them.
I have heard many taxonomists , who mostly deal with "ornamental" or
collector species (particularly aroids, bromeliads, orchids, etc.), that
speak of the particular "beauty" over this or that species. In ornamentals
people hybridize to try to find more "beauty" in what they grow. This is
there opinion. It is no less valid than yours. To belittle and accuse people
of doing some sort of irreparable harm is unfair and very narrow in vision.
The big bang brought us in and a singularity may take us out.......so enjoy
......and let others enjoy.
Maybe you all are just kidding
Neil
|
|
From: Jill Bell godjillab at home.com> on 2001.06.22 at 15:58:12(6828)
Perhaps this is a bit simple for some of you but it occurs to me that man
hybridizes to mirror himself in immortality by putting his name on the
offspring "he" has created. Nature hybridizes for a systematic effect,
survival. Man hybridizes many times haphazardly but can maintain the
offspring artificially.
To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are
meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not
survive in nature at all.
This is a tremendously interesting discussion!
-- Jill Bell
| +More |
Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.22 at 16:00:28(6830)
Mawnin' too Neil,
Trul...Thank you. Being fatigued is no excuse for expressing passions with
inadequate colour about principles one considers important. I will try to
write more gently & even in green & white.... So, chaps & chappesses, if you
took anything as hurtful or offensive, I am sorry, it was not mean't...As I
have effused so often, you are a rare group of very benevolent and caring
people and friends with thankfully a huge variety of interesrts &
perspectives. It has been great to be allowed into this group of so many
people colourfully sharing widely different feelings & thoughts so
helpfully. It is to me a rare & rich dialogue. And it is encouraging to
see three positive principles or more being thrown again into the arena.
First, enhancing respect for species & origin integrity & their continued
survival. Secondly, encouraging pedigrees of advanced hybrids to be
documented. Thirdly, and a related profundity, that Man is a Custodian of
the heritage of biodiversity and that the new "cultodiversity" should build
harmoniously and responsibly on the old. I will continue my contributions
to the continuing jousts with as much jest as possible.
Lastly, again thank you for your efforts and enthusiasms as News Editor. In
the past seven or so weeks even with the wonderful support & kindness of the
"News Team" I have realised what a challenge & onorous task the job was and
is.
Best Wishes
Ron
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
| Ron, It is rare that I have read such furious defense of the keeping of
| "pure" species and such an aversion to hybridization. I personally am a
| species collector because I enjoy the beauty of what I am attracted to.
But,
| beyond the taxonomists' obvious frustration with hybridizers, I see no
| reason to viscously attack those who wish to hybridize. Your point of view
| seems to exclude and put "outside of Nature" humans. I can think of no
| scenario that excludes humans from nature. We and what we do are
intricatly
| and inextricably a part of Nature. NO matter how "obscene" you think
people
| are.
|
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like Anthurium but find Spaths
| rather banal. I find Amorph. and Dracontium beautiful but know that the
| population at large would find them ugly. The plants we enjoy are enjoyed
| because of a VISUAL beauty we find in them.
|
| I have heard many taxonomists , who mostly deal with "ornamental" or
| collector species (particularly aroids, bromeliads, orchids, etc.), that
| speak of the particular "beauty" over this or that species. In ornamentals
| people hybridize to try to find more "beauty" in what they grow. This is
| there opinion. It is no less valid than yours. To belittle and accuse
people
| of doing some sort of irreparable harm is unfair and very narrow in
vision.
|
| The big bang brought us in and a singularity may take us out.......so
enjoy
| ......and let others enjoy.
|
| Maybe you all are just kidding
|
| Neil
|
|
|
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.22 at 16:05:51(6836)
What would our famous Roadrunner think of THAT!!! His mortal enemy would
suddenly be a wolve instead of a coyote..... Poor creature.
W.
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 22:11
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> in the u.s. lately, more and more scientists see that not only there's no
distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also
the same species.
>
> In a message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:03:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
>
> << The question then is: is a Canis familiaris actually Canis lupus???? OR
is
> it Canis lupus 'Dalmatian' and Canis lupus 'Dachshund'?? Or is it Canis
> familiaris 'Dalmatian' or Canis familiaris 'Dachshund'? Or plain Canis
> 'Dalmatian' and Canis 'Dachshund'?
>
> WHAT is the idea of giving the domesticated dog a Latin binomen?? WHAT
does
> Canis familiaris ACTUALLY mean?
>
> BTW: MOST cultivars of plants are NOT line-bred but hybridised
extensively.
> And even a line-bred result is a cultivar NOT a species. And to boot:
Nature
> does NOT line-breed with a pre-set goal.
>
> Wilbert >>
>
>
>
|
|
From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.06.23 at 05:15:58(6847)
Neil, what a well spoken commentary upon personal choice of like and dislike.
Those who hold true to either side of the coin, will find life to be rather
rigid and unforgiving when they step off of their high and mighty mountains and
come down here to the realm of nature in the valley where anything goes and
everything has an opportunity.
Betsy
| +More | |
Neil Carroll wrote:
> Ron, It is rare that I have read such furious defense of the keeping of
> "pure" species and such an aversion to hybridization. I personally am a
> species collector because I enjoy the beauty of what I am attracted to. But,
> beyond the taxonomists' obvious frustration with hybridizers, I see no
> reason to viscously attack those who wish to hybridize. Your point of view
> seems to exclude and put "outside of Nature" humans. I can think of no
> scenario that excludes humans from nature. We and what we do are intricatly
> and inextricably a part of Nature. NO matter how "obscene" you think people
> are.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like Anthurium but find Spaths
> rather banal. I find Amorph. and Dracontium beautiful but know that the
> population at large would find them ugly. The plants we enjoy are enjoyed
> because of a VISUAL beauty we find in them.
>
> I have heard many taxonomists , who mostly deal with "ornamental" or
> collector species (particularly aroids, bromeliads, orchids, etc.), that
> speak of the particular "beauty" over this or that species. In ornamentals
> people hybridize to try to find more "beauty" in what they grow. This is
> there opinion. It is no less valid than yours. To belittle and accuse people
> of doing some sort of irreparable harm is unfair and very narrow in vision.
>
> The big bang brought us in and a singularity may take us out.......so enjoy
> ......and let others enjoy.
>
> Maybe you all are just kidding
>
> Neil
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.23 at 05:16:20(6848)
Jill is the Graphics Part of the new "News". She's a Great Gal. Say
"Hullo" please? Brace yourselves. So, think carefully before you
miscagenate and boast about it before and after, else we'll strike together
in a pincer action. This woman is DYNAMITE! United we stand.... News(2)
is eight glorious pages this time. That's your Introduction, Jill.
Oh, and the Stage Managers said "keep your pollen dry". (Aside) I bet some
of these crazy townies haven't even seen the cow they eat.
Fred
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
| Perhaps this is a bit simple for some of you but it occurs to me that man
| hybridizes to mirror himself in immortality by putting his name on the
| offspring "he" has created. Nature hybridizes for a systematic effect,
| survival. Man hybridizes many times haphazardly but can maintain the
| offspring artificially.
| To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are
| meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not
| survive in nature at all.
| This is a tremendously interesting discussion!
| -- Jill Bell
| Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.23 at 05:48:00(6851)
In a message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
<< The question then is: is a Canis familiaris actually Canis lupus???? OR is
it Canis lupus 'Dalmatian' and Canis lupus 'Dachshund'?? Or is it Canis
familiaris 'Dalmatian' or Canis familiaris 'Dachshund'? Or plain Canis
'Dalmatian' and Canis 'Dachshund'?
To complicate matters further, I have seen the Dingo called not only Canis familiaris dingo AND Canis lupus dingo, but even Canis lupus familiaris dingo -- a whopping tetranomen. The Dingo is clearly a viable wild form, bearing little resemblance to any existing subspecies of wolf.
| |
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.23 at 05:48:19(6852)
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 there's no distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also the same species.
Really? This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf, since, 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 guys outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already alleging 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 folks come up with next?
Jason Hernandez
| +More | |
Naturalist-at-Large
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.24 at 00:24:19(6857)
I think what we have here is again the awareness that messing around with
objects that originally came from the wild, will eventually lead to objects
that won't make it in nature. This is why I and a colleague of mine proposed
that we also separate the taxonomies of those objects based on different
systematic logic of classification of those objects. They are in 2 different
contexts ("worlds") and should not be mixed in classifications with
different purposes....bla, bla, bla....
Wilbert Lord P.
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: vrijdag 22 juni 2001 17:57
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> Perhaps this is a bit simple for some of you but it occurs to me that man
> hybridizes to mirror himself in immortality by putting his name on the
> offspring "he" has created. Nature hybridizes for a systematic effect,
> survival. Man hybridizes many times haphazardly but can maintain the
> offspring artificially.
> To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are
> meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not
> survive in nature at all.
> This is a tremendously interesting discussion!
> -- Jill Bell
> Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography
>
>
>
>
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.24 at 05:27:41(6859)
Dear Folks,
For Goodness Sake we do this for FUN. For studying and growing aroids! I
am truly sorry if bits of what I wrote were not perceived as helpful with
fun. Although one tries hard, the written word doesn't always work as well
as the spoken word. I have been seemingly accused of things that don't in
reality appear in my part of the dialogue. We can dialogue in matters which
others feel serious and different about and still be positive about the
other folks. Everything's important! But do we ever again need to take
ourselves that seriously? GOOD things have emerged from this long
conversation from which we can learn. Some of it is about our beloved
plants, some of it about our own positivities as well as negativities. It
is the Summer Solstice when the wolf & coyote howl maybe best and the Road
Runner is at most peril. I suggest it isn't what & who but how and why?
This has turned into something not fitting for our international community,
maybe for reasons unrelated to the issues.... Is it not well overdue time
for change of topics, PLEASE. Everyone is a your Friend, Folks. You have
enormous reserves of positivity and humour. Everything can be said in
constructive FUN as people put forward their points of View & input
"different" & helpful information. Benign cut & thrust is part of fine
dialogue. Lets move on and forward regarding the good intent of
contributors who also give their time & energy to us. PLEASE give them the
benefit of your doubt and then they will not be found wanting.... There are
only a few involved in this Dialogue & I truly like you all & I hope you
will always benignly reciprocate. Please let us loosen up and let Peace
break out. The wounds are scratches and we have gained much in the
Learning.
| +More | |
Ron-Fred
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
| Neil, what a well spoken commentary upon personal choice of like and
dislike.
| Those who hold true to either side of the coin, will find life to be
rather
| rigid and unforgiving when they step off of their high and mighty
mountains and
| come down here to the realm of nature in the valley where anything goes
and
| everything has an opportunity.
|
| Betsy
|
| Neil Carroll wrote:
|
| > Ron, It is rare that I have read such furious defense of the keeping of
| > "pure" species and such an aversion to hybridization. I personally am a
| > species collector because I enjoy the beauty of what I am attracted to.
But,
| > beyond the taxonomists' obvious frustration with hybridizers, I see no
| > reason to viscously attack those who wish to hybridize. Your point of
view
| > seems to exclude and put "outside of Nature" humans. I can think of no
| > scenario that excludes humans from nature. We and what we do are
intricatly
| > and inextricably a part of Nature. NO matter how "obscene" you think
people
| > are.
| >
| > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like Anthurium but find Spaths
| > rather banal. I find Amorph. and Dracontium beautiful but know that the
| > population at large would find them ugly. The plants we enjoy are
enjoyed
| > because of a VISUAL beauty we find in them.
| >
| > I have heard many taxonomists , who mostly deal with "ornamental" or
| > collector species (particularly aroids, bromeliads, orchids, etc.), that
| > speak of the particular "beauty" over this or that species. In
ornamentals
| > people hybridize to try to find more "beauty" in what they grow. This is
| > there opinion. It is no less valid than yours. To belittle and accuse
people
| > of doing some sort of irreparable harm is unfair and very narrow in
vision.
| >
| > The big bang brought us in and a singularity may take us out.......so
enjoy
| > ......and let others enjoy.
| >
| > Maybe you all are just kidding
| >
| > Neil
|
|
|
|
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.24 at 05:29:27(6861)
Hi Jason,
In response to the thread copied below. The original posting was not correct.
Coyotes and our two North American wolf species are still distinct species.
Your questions are pretty accurate. As the biologists began to try to save
the Red Wolf (Canis niger), the initial efforts were set back when the first
captive stock was found to be hybrids with coyotes. Happily undiluted
blood-lines were found and I think the Red Wolf's future is currently secure
in captivity at least.
"Canis familiaris" was never a good species entity. Linnaeus named it from
the domestic dog - not from a wild population.
Jim Langhammer
| +More |
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 there's no
distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also
the same species.
Really? This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf, since,
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 guys
outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already alleging
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 folks
come up with next?
Jason Hernandez
Naturalist-at-Large >>
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.24 at 05:30:19(6862)
In a message dated Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:58:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jill Bell writes:
<< To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are
meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not
survive in nature at all.
This is a tremendously interesting discussion!
Yes. But then there is Maize Corn. Its seeds remain locked tightly within the husk until man frees them -- obviously incapable of perpetuating itself in nature -- yet it has been thus for thousands of years.
| |
|
From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.06.25 at 00:35:41(6865)
Dear Jim,
Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the
link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow. Should we divide the
species between natural species and artificial species? We have some
borderline cases. Let's talk about Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott. It
was discovered (firstly by Linneus) based on plants cultivated at West
Indies. It probably doesn't occur in the wild, but associated with
"primitive" people. It is clearly (not so clearly) different from the other
species of Xanthosoma, but it probably has its origins associated with
humans. Should we consider it an artificial species, or should we consider
it as a species that evolved in some kind of mutualistic relation with the
human animal? The same with X. riedelianum, X. atrovirens and many other
species. Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild. It was
described based on cultivated specimens, and it was never found again,
except at the closest supermarket. (Ron, correct me if I am wrong) Linnean
binomials are artificial in their origin, and it will remains like this
until we discover something different. A Linnean name only means a peculiar
association of genes, translated to morphology in a non-linear way. We only
avoid using it in cultivated plants ("very artificial species") because it
would turn into a very hard task, naming all those brand new association of
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),
Eduardo.
| +More |
>"Canis familiaris" was never a good species entity. Linnaeus named it from
>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 there's
>no
>distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also
>the same species.
>
> Really? This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf,
>since,
>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 guys
>outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already alleging
>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
>folks
>come up with next?
>
> Jason Hernandez
> Naturalist-at-Large >>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
|
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.25 at 15:42:41(6873)
Dear Eduardo
You wrote: "Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild. It was
described based on cultivated specimens".
| +More |
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)
Linnean
| binomials are artificial in their origin, and it will remains like this
| until we discover something different. A Linnean name only means a
peculiar
| association of genes, translated to morphology in a non-linear way. We
only
| avoid using it in cultivated plants ("very artificial species") because it
| would turn into a very hard task, naming all those brand new association
of
| 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),
|
| Eduardo.
|
|
| >"Canis familiaris" was never a good species entity. Linnaeus named it
from
| >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
there's
| >no
| >distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are
also
| >the same species.
| >
| > Really? This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf,
| >since,
| >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
guys
| >outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already
alleging
| >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
| >folks
| >come up with next?
| >
| > Jason Hernandez
| > Naturalist-at-Large >>
|
| _________________________________________________________________________
| Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
|
|
|
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.25 at 15:43:34(6874)
In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
edggon@hotmail.com writes:
<< Dear Jim,
| +More |
Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the
link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow. >>
Hey Eduardo,
You misinterpret what I said. Linnaeus in his early taxonomic efforts treated
some domestic hybrids as "species" - the dog is NOT a species but a hybrid of
a mishmash of wolf subspecies plus ??? (who knows what)! It should not be
given a binomial epithet under international rules.
Even today many long named plant "species" are being recognized as
"non-species" of domestic or perhaps even naturally-occurring hybrids. The
best treatment of this subject that I know is given in Schmid's THE GENUS
HOSTA.
Jim Langhammer
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.25 at 20:50:15(6880)
Hear, hear, a TRUE cultonomist at word! Compliments Jim Langhammer! problem
will be that some of these long-standing Linnean binomials have a very
important status in legal documents and what not. We might as well try to
live with these entirely cultigenic things having a binomen. But a list must
be prepared and all those names then conserved for ever, so as not to change
them again. We sort of need to "mummify" those names and list them.
Wilbert
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: maandag 25 juni 2001 17:43
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> edggon@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << Dear Jim,
>
> Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the
> link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow. >>
>
> Hey Eduardo,
>
> You misinterpret what I said. Linnaeus in his early taxonomic efforts
treated
> some domestic hybrids as "species" - the dog is NOT a species but a hybrid
of
> a mishmash of wolf subspecies plus ??? (who knows what)! It should not be
> given a binomial epithet under international rules.
>
> Even today many long named plant "species" are being recognized as
> "non-species" of domestic or perhaps even naturally-occurring hybrids. The
> best treatment of this subject that I know is given in Schmid's THE GENUS
> HOSTA.
>
> Jim Langhammer
>
|
|
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.26 at 05:55:21(6883)
In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
edggon@hotmail.com writes:
It is clearly (not so clearly) different from the other
| +More |
species of Xanthosoma, but it probably has its origins associated with
humans. Should we consider it an artificial species, or should we consider
it as a species that evolved in some kind of mutualistic relation with the
human animal? The same with X. riedelianum, X. atrovirens and many other
species. Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild.
aren't many plants totally unknown in the wild? including pineapple, corn,
and the common hibiscus.
tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orchidspecies
|
|
From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.06.26 at 05:56:16(6884)
Dear Jim,
What I am trying to say (in my Tarzan's English) is that now we know lots
of examples of spontaneous or semi-spontaneous hybrids being treated as good
species by Linnaeus. Now we know that Linnaeus' Musa paradisiaca is one of
the hybrids of Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. The problem is that we
only know that it is an hybrid because we like bananas. However, there are
many "respectable" good species that are, in fact, natural hybrids. We do
not know about them just because they are poorly studied. So we call them
like Linnean binomials. The only difference is that now we know about their
history. If all of them were economically important, it is possible that we
would only have a few Linnean names to apply.
Best wishes,
Eduardo.
| +More |
>From: Lewandjim@aol.com
>Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org
>To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
>Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:43:33 -0500 (CDT)
>
>In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>edggon@hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Dear Jim,
>
> Now you put my brain in complete confusion. We must remember that the
> link between cultivated and wild species is too narrow. >>
>
>Hey Eduardo,
>
>You misinterpret what I said. Linnaeus in his early taxonomic efforts
>treated
>some domestic hybrids as "species" - the dog is NOT a species but a hybrid
>of
>a mishmash of wolf subspecies plus ??? (who knows what)! It should not be
>given a binomial epithet under international rules.
>
>Even today many long named plant "species" are being recognized as
>"non-species" of domestic or perhaps even naturally-occurring hybrids. The
>best treatment of this subject that I know is given in Schmid's THE GENUS
>HOSTA.
>
> Jim Langhammer
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
|
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.26 at 15:29:21(6887)
In a message dated 6/26/2001 1:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
edggon@hotmail.com writes:
<< What I am trying to say (in my Tarzan's English) is that now we know
| +More |
lots
of examples of spontaneous or semi-spontaneous hybrids being treated as good
species by Linnaeus. >>
Eduardo,
We have no basis for disagreement. Hybridization has played a major role in
the evolution of many plants and animals. Linnaeus' early work however did
not separate "natural self-replicating populations" from man-induced
non-stable genomes that were cultivars created by humans for our own pleasure
(e.g., Canis familiaris). I think you would agree that only the natural
populations fulfill what systematists consider to be "species".
Jim Langhammer
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.26 at 21:02:24(6890)
Species unknown in nature should be treated differently by taxonomy. Thus
far there is no part of evolutionary theory clearly stating HOW to treat
these entities, so they should not be considered as "normal" species, until
such matters have been resolbved. So far they are "evolutionary noise".
Wilbert
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: dinsdag 26 juni 2001 7:55
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> edggon@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > It is clearly (not so clearly) different from the other
> > species of Xanthosoma, but it probably has its origins associated with
> > humans. Should we consider it an artificial species, or should we
consider
> > it as a species that evolved in some kind of mutualistic relation with
the
> > human animal? The same with X. riedelianum, X. atrovirens and many other
> >
>
> aren't many plants totally unknown in the wild? including pineapple,
corn,
> and the common hibiscus.
>
> tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orchidspecies
>
|
|
From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.06.27 at 03:36:46(6893)
-----Original Message-----From:
Julius Boos To: aroid-l@mobot.org Date:
Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:53 AMSubject: Re: Line breeding vs
hybridization
| +More |
-----Original Message-----From:
Piabinha@aol.com To:
Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date:
Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:55 AMSubject: Re: Line breeding vs
hybridizationIn a message
dated 6/24/2001 8:36:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, edggon@hotmail.com writes:
It is clearly (not so clearly) different from the other
species of Xanthosoma, but it probably has its origins associated
with humans. Should we consider it an artificial species, or should
we consider it as a species that evolved in some kind of mutualistic
relation with the human animal? The same with X. riedelianum, X.
atrovirens and many other species. Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is
not known in the wild. >>aren't many
plants totally unknown in the wild? including pineapple, corn, and
the common hibiscus. <<
Pineapples are certainly known from the wild, the wild
'forms'/species produce MUCH smaller (2" dia.)sour fruit, not as tasty
as the selectivly bred forms that are commercially grown. I grow three
'species' here, beautiful (but spiney!)little things.
I just posted a note about 'wild' maize, and I`m not
sure about hibiscus, but there are vars./species of 'simple' hibiscus which
I`ve been TOLD are the wild forms, one has a basket/pendant
bloom.
To TRY and keep this discussion
Aroid-related, perhaps someone w/ time on their hands here in Florida or in
a warm clime (Eduardo!?!?!?) can plant and observe a rhizome from a
'cultivated' plant of X. sagittifolia---I am told that unless this plant is
'tended', i.e. harvested, re-planted, etc., it stops or slows its producion
of the desirable off-shoot rhizomes and just becomes a GIANT plant that
produces many blooms, in other words it reverts to a 'wild'
state. If even this 'proves' nothing, at least it may show/teach us something about what
the 'wild' plant was like! I have seen these 'wild' Xanthosomas
here in Florida, and they are MUCH larger than the ones you see in
cultivated fields South of the Miami area.
Julius Boos
W.P.B.,
FLORIDAtsuh yang chen, nyc, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orchidspecies
|
|
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.27 at 15:46:42(6900)
Some years back John Lager of the now expunct Lager & Hurrell Orchids
submitted a 4th generation cultivated Cattleya labiata for AOS judging. The
flowers were so much changed and improved over any wild collected and grown
spacimens that the judges disqualified it - claiming it must be of hybrid
nature.
| +More |
"Wilbert Hetterscheid" @mobot.org on 06/23/2001
08:25:04 PM
Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org
Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
cc:
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
I think what we have here is again the awareness that messing around with
objects that originally came from the wild, will eventually lead to objects
that won't make it in nature. This is why I and a colleague of mine
proposed
that we also separate the taxonomies of those objects based on different
systematic logic of classification of those objects. They are in 2
different
contexts ("worlds") and should not be mixed in classifications with
different purposes....bla, bla, bla....
Wilbert Lord P.
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: vrijdag 22 juni 2001 17:57
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> Perhaps this is a bit simple for some of you but it occurs to me that man
> hybridizes to mirror himself in immortality by putting his name on the
> offspring "he" has created. Nature hybridizes for a systematic effect,
> survival. Man hybridizes many times haphazardly but can maintain the
> offspring artificially.
> To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are
> meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not
> survive in nature at all.
> This is a tremendously interesting discussion!
> -- Jill Bell
> Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography
>
>
>
>
|
|
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.28 at 03:19:44(6902)
Supposedly the coyote population that crossed over to the eastern states
through Canada and upstate New York is presumed to have some timber wolf
infusion. The animals are much larger than the original 40 lbs. for adults.
Looking for signs in North Jersey next weekend...
Lewandjim@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/24/2001 01:30:12 AM
Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org
Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org
| +More |
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
cc:
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
Hi Jason,
In response to the thread copied below. The original posting was not
correct.
Coyotes and our two North American wolf species are still distinct species.
Your questions are pretty accurate. As the biologists began to try to save
the Red Wolf (Canis niger), the initial efforts were set back when the
first
captive stock was found to be hybrids with coyotes. Happily undiluted
blood-lines were found and I think the Red Wolf's future is currently
secure
in captivity at least.
"Canis familiaris" was never a good species entity. Linnaeus named it from
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 there's
no
distinct species as Canis familiaris, but that coyotes and wolves are also
the same species.
Really? This sounds to me like an excuse not to conserve the wolf, since,
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 guys
outside Yellowstone will love that. And, since some were already alleging
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
folks
come up with next?
Jason Hernandez
Naturalist-at-Large >>
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 03:21:49(6904)
In a message dated Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Lewandjim@aol.com writes:
<< You misinterpret what I said. Linnaeus in his early taxonomic efforts treated
some domestic hybrids as "species" - the dog is NOT a species but a hybrid of
a mishmash of wolf subspecies plus ??? (who knows what)! It should not be
given a binomial epithet under international rules.
Okay. Next question -- how does one determine this? Nowadays we have DNA analysis, but Linnaeus did not. What about the Dingo and the New Guinea Whistling Dog, which are both wild descendants of domestic dogs?
The domestic pig is generally called Sus scrofa, like its postulated ancestor, the wild boar; but the domestic cow, Bos taurus, has a distinct name from its ancestor the aurochs (Bos primigenius). Do genuinely wild Equus caballus exist?
Jason Hernandez
| +More | |
Naturalist-at-Large
|
|
From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.06.28 at 15:57:44(6908)
>
>Okay. Next question -- how does one determine this? Nowadays we have DNA
analysis, but Linnaeus did not. What about the Dingo and the New Guinea
Whistling Dog, which are both wild descendants of domestic dogs?
>
Haven't Dingos been here in Australia longer than the white man? If that
is the case then I doubt they are descendents of domestic dogs. If they
ARE wild descendents, then how did they become so homogenous and distinct
in only 200 years being wild?
You've got me wondering now.
Cheers.
Paul Tyerman
| +More |
Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8
mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au
Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Crocus, Cyrtanthus,
Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that
doesn't move!!!!!
|
|
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 23:33:27(6912)
just finished reading this book by jared diamond, "guns, germs and steel." according to it, dingos were brought in from indonesia/southeast asia as domestic dogs (perhaps by people who did not stay or settle in australia), who then became feral and reverted to the wild.
tsuh yang
In a message dated Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:58:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Paul Tyerman writes:
| +More |
<< Haven't Dingos been here in Australia longer than the white man? If that
is the case then I doubt they are descendents of domestic dogs. If they
ARE wild descendents, then how did they become so homogenous and distinct
in only 200 years being wild? >>
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 23:37:00(6916)
In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 5:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
<< Species unknown in nature should be treated differently by taxonomy.>>
| +More | |
If leafcutter ants were the taxonomists, they could say that their fungus crop is unknown in nature -- that is, if they defined nature so as to exclude themselves, as we humans generally (and artificially) do.
|
|
From: "Jay Vannini" interbnk at terra.com.gt> on 2001.06.29 at 06:39:01(6917)
Bravo!!
----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
| +More |
> In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 5:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
>
> << Species unknown in nature should be treated differently by taxonomy.>>
>
> If leafcutter ants were the taxonomists, they could say that their fungus
crop is unknown in nature -- that is, if they defined nature so as to
exclude themselves, as we humans generally (and artificially) do.
|
|
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.07.01 at 04:17:35(6923)
Which could only be mended if we would adapt evolutionary theory to include
a general theory on the origin of cultivars etc. Fine with me, but as long
as nobody does it, we're stuck with cultivars being man-made "products". If
we would not make a differencve between the context of human society and its
products and "nature" and its products, we might as well start classifying
china as part of geochemical theories on clay minerals etc. I don't think
we'd wanna do that (right now.....).
Wilbert
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: vrijdag 29 juni 2001 1:36
Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization
> In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 5:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Wilbert Hetterscheid" writes:
>
> << Species unknown in nature should be treated differently by taxonomy.>>
>
> If leafcutter ants were the taxonomists, they could say that their fungus
crop is unknown in nature -- that is, if they defined nature so as to
exclude themselves, as we humans generally (and artificially) do.
>
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.07.01 at 04:18:22(6926)
In a message dated Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:58:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Paul Tyerman writes:
<< Haven't Dingos been here in Australia longer than the white man? If that
is the case then I doubt they are descendents of domestic dogs.
You think the white man is the only one who had domestic dogs? Domestic dogs have existed for millennia throughout Eurasia and into the Americas; the ancestors of the Aborigines brought the ancestors of the Dingo to Australia.
| |
|
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.07.01 at 15:50:17(6927)
In a message dated 6/29/2001 2:39:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
interbnk@terra.com.gt writes:
<< > If leafcutter ants were the taxonomists, they could say that their fungus
| +More |
crop is unknown in nature -- that is, if they defined nature so as to
exclude themselves, as we humans generally (and artificially) do.
>>
Things are really getting out of perspective here. Such a fungus crop is not
an altered and hybridized unnatural entity, the ants simply nurture it in a
specific locale for their own use. Not all that different from all those
gardeners currently enjoying Amorphophallus titanum in captivity.
Jim Langhammer
|
|
From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.07.02 at 15:58:38(6932)
Hi Jim,
>We have no basis for disagreement. Hybridization has played a major role in
>the evolution of many plants and animals. Linnaeus' early work however did
>not separate "natural self-replicating populations" from man-induced
>non-stable genomes that were cultivars created by humans for our own
>pleasure
| +More |
>(e.g., Canis familiaris). I think you would agree that only the natural
>populations fulfill what systematists consider to be "species".
Yes, I think you're correct. Anyway, I still don't know what _I_ should
consider to be species! I am losing my faith!
Best wishes,
Eduardo.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
|
From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.07.02 at 16:33:36(6933)
>
>You think the white man is the only one who had domestic dogs? Domestic
dogs have existed for millennia throughout Eurasia and into the Americas;
the ancestors of the Aborigines brought the ancestors of the Dingo to
Australia.
At the time I answered to my knowledge the Aboriginals did not domesticate
dogs, which is why I was querying whether they were teh result of
domestication. Having originally asked about this in my comment I've
checked into it and they DO, so it is entirely probable that they were the
result of early domesticates released in Australia.
At the time I wrote I did not realise that the Aboriginals utilised the
dingos.
Cheers.
Paul Tyerman
| +More |
Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8
mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au
Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Crocus, Cyrtanthus,
Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that
doesn't move!!!!!
|
| |
Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.
|
|
