amorpho titanium pollen !!!)tisnt any longer

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.23 at 05:15:30(6845) Dear Lord Dr. Hetterscheid, Thank you kindly for the delight. This is Ireland where many (in)famous Americans originated. They fled because unlike your advanced Country it has no Academic Libraries within cycling distance. If t'were possible to buy or borrow the documents it would be mightily appreciated. I will write privately. As you sympathetically say they are not easy reading because I do not read easy. If you want some banal Spaths I could send them to Nederlands without phyto to nematode your wayward peripherals. Respectfully, especially in the shade of your plant predelictions, I understand your concern at being called "...ie". (I will not repeat it to antagonise you further). But please good sir, no similar appendage to my first name. It really hurts to be mnemonically linked with a recent ex-Irish American Comedian. In recognition of my lowly state please call me "Fred" +More I am in your Debt my Liege Fred ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: Re: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) | Dear Lord Ronnie, | | The paper was published in Taxon (see my reference), a rather distinguished | forum for taxonomy and its peculiar practitioners..... I know, I am one of | them.... If you cannot get this Taxon volume in a nearby academic library | (or are you in the USA....hee, hee), send me your private address privately | and who knows, I might even find a reprint. Mind you, it is NOT easy | reading...... | | Cheerio, | Lord P. | | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: Ron Iles | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L | Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 22:12 | Subject: Re: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) | | | > Dear Lord P, | > | > This further rare discussion on phallods having changed direction...the | > fundamental principles arising seem most interesting. However, I & | perhaps | > others have too limited understanding of the status quo and that | vulnerable | > state needs remedy. I could easily have got out of my depth treading on | > unsafely floating hybrid phallods. And I sense already that your view of | > anthropocentrism from the afforested mountain parishes and glasshouse-ed | > plains of the Nederlands is out of line with my religious environmental | > fundamentalist views here. So, where do I get a print of your 1995 paper | > with Dr. Brandenberg please? This matter seems of such huge importance, | > that it is salutory that it should have arisen from a discussion on the | > values & aesthetics of your pre-eminent genus. It could make great IAS | > reading? May all your Amorphods remain pure even if they are inbred | > miscagenations. | > | > My respects, Lord P | > | > Ron | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" | > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" | > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:04 PM | > Subject: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) | > | > | > | To Ron, from Amorph- and cultivated plant taxonomy -land | > | | > | I think you're mixing two "realities". I do see that you recognise them, | > | being "nature" and its own laws of evolution of biodiversity and "man" | (or | > | should that read "women".....?), with its own influence on biodiversity, | > | leading to a parallell diversity in domesticated entities (e.g. plant | > | cultivars, domesticated cats and dogs, cows, and what have you). I think | > we | > | should not condemn what we're doing ourselves to improve our society | > (think | > | of agricultural crops being vastly artificially improved to fill our | > needs) | > | because we obscure the beauty of wild things. We have a pre-set goal in | > | manipulating plants and animals and we do it and succeed, resulting in a | > | kind of "culto-diversity" with which we are mostly very pleased. Nature | > has | > | no intentional goal and thus "produces" another kind of diversity, which | > we | > | may like, or maybe even dislike. I don't think you should take "nature" | > | itself as the norm and adapt our domestication and breeding to THAT | norm. | > WE | > | are the norm, whether some of us like or dislike that anthropocentrism. | > It's | > | reality, and that's what it is. | > | | > | Should we revert to collecting our food ONLY from what nature has to | offer | > | in its present form? I guess we'd have a REAL social problem coming up | > then. | > | | > | Suggested reading (and self-promotion....): Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & W.A. | > | Brandenburg. 1995. Culton vs. Taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated | plant | > | systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175. | > | | > | Have phun. | > | | > | Cultbert | > | | > | | > | ----- Original Message ----- | > | From: Ron Iles | > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L | > | Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 1:22 | > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | > | | > | | > | > | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > | > From: | > | > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" | > | > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:50 PM | > | > Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | > | > | > | > | > | > | | > | > | Yes, imagine a paeonifolius "super-sized": or on a taller stem like | > that | > | > of | > | > | gigas! Howbout novel colorpatterns from breeding with albispathus? | > | > | C'mon Wilbert! Its done with Anthurium and Spathiphyllum! | > | > | Bonaventure W. Magrys | > | > | Cliffwood Beach, NJ | > | > | > | > Bonaventure! | > | > | > | > Your mention of Spathiphyllum has brought me into this. I have | > Wilbert's | > | & | > | > friends' wonderful monograph on Amorphophallus, Even though to me | they | > | are | > | > hellish in contrast to heavenly Peace Lilies please can I write my | > | thoughts? | > | > | > | > Many generations of haphazard & usually undocumented hybridisation of | > | > Spathiphyllum has produced chaos. Spectacular "artificial" cultivars | > now | > | > reign where only elegantly adapted natural species existed before. | > | Species | > | > evolved over the mists of time to suit their ecological niches, | exactly. | > | > Cultivars for Man's "ornament" unrelated to natural evolution & | > sometimes | > | > degrading of Natural fitness. Most could not survive true | competition | > in | > | > the wild. | > | > | > | > Is it to be the same history with everything when Man's curiosity | leads | > | him | > | > to try to "improve" upon Nature. If so, then a plea to keep wild | > species | > | > integrity in cultivation. Another plea objectively to document | > heritages | > | & | > | > pedigrees of all "hybrids" most carefully before allocating | meaningless | > | > "names". There is hardly a group of "domesticated" animals or plants | > | which | > | > Man has not tried to improve upon to the detriment & often loss of the | > | > "wild" species. 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. | > | > | > | > There are major principles here for all those who breed wild species. | > Why | > | > does one hybridise? Surely, if species have been most carefully | > brought | > | > into the custody of domestic cultivation from the wild there is an | > | > inalienable responsibilityfor Homo sapiens to honour not to trivialise | > | > Nature? | > | > | > | > I have tried to add humour to discussions even on plants which I can | say | > | > euphemistically are not my favourites. Sorry to be serious. I do not | > | mean | > | > to be a party pooper but there is a major ethic here. | > | > | > | > Ron Iles | > | > | > | > | | > | > | GeoffAroid@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/20/2001 02:44:08 AM | > | > | | > | > | Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org | > | > | | > | > | Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L | > | > | cc: | > | > | | > | > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | In a message dated 19/6/01 11:10:48 pm, magrysbo@shu.edu writes: | > | > | | > | > | << Brian, You're making hybrids? Great. >> | > | > | | > | > | I have visions of an Amorph with the vigour, hardiness and ability | to | > | > | divide | > | > | of konjac and the size and dramatic structure of titanum; the mind | > | > | boggles......I think Wilbert has just fainted at the thought...... | > | > | | > | > | Geoffrey Kibby | > | > | London | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | | > | > | > | > | > | | > | | > | > | |

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