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 2001.06.20 at 20:25:40(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
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.21 at 09:01:09(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.21 at 09:01:36(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
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.21 at 09:03:36(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
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.21 at 13:11:37(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.21 at 13:12:24(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
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.21 at 20:18:55(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
From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2001.06.21 at 22:20:54(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
From: Jill Bell godjillab at home.com> on 2001.06.22 at 08:58:12(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.22 at 09:00:28(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
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.22 at 09:05:51(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
From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.06.22 at 22:15:58(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.22 at 22:16:20(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
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.22 at 22:48:00(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 2001.06.22 at 22:48:19(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
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.23 at 17:24:19(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.23 at 22:27:41(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
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.23 at 22:29:27(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
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.23 at 22:30:19(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 2001.06.24 at 17:35:41(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
From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.25 at 08:42:41(6873)
Dear Eduardo

You wrote: "Even Spathiphyllum wallisii is not known in the wild. It was
described based on cultivated specimens".

+More
From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2001.06.25 at 08:43:34(6874)
In a message dated 6/24/2001 8:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
edggon@hotmail.com writes:

<< Dear Jim,

+More
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.25 at 13:50:15(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
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.25 at 22:55:21(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
From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.06.25 at 22:56:16(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 at aol.com on 2001.06.26 at 08:29:21(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
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.26 at 14:02:24(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
From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.06.26 at 20:36:46(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
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.27 at 08:46:42(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
From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.27 at 20:19:44(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
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.27 at 20:21:49(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
From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.06.28 at 08:57:44(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
From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 16:33:27(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
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.28 at 16:37:00(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
From: "Jay Vannini" interbnk at terra.com.gt> on 2001.06.28 at 23:39:01(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
From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.30 at 21:17:35(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
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.06.30 at 21:18:22(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 08:50:17(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
From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.07.02 at 08:58:38(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
From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.07.02 at 09:33:36(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
Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.