A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[lotis146]

First, I don't know that migratory birds are necessarily considered native or non-native. I've certainly never heard of them being referred to as invasive. I've spent a fair amount of time in Michigan and Illinois and have seen the Ruby-throated my entire life.

Orchidsarefun again I understand your points with respect to "hearing out" even audacious ideas. However I now feel the need to speak up a little more for a second because while this thread has included some great information no doubt it's been incredibly frustrating on all fronts.

Of course the anger flurrying around just clouds the stuff that matters. At the same time so does Epiphyte's one-sided behavior. First off, I love Hummingbirds (I spent a couple weeks in Ecuador volunteering on a research project regarding them) but his injecting that after all the brash AND well thought out comments that came before this comment frustrated me. It shows his disregard for what people are really saying. It's this sort of behavior that I believe has upset people.

While Epiphyte insists that other people address his comments and explain their own including citing sources I've been noticing that he doesn't do much to actually ADDRESS the scientific points that people have made. Sure he's replied to the emotional ones but why not people's concerns for introducing a hybrid? Why is he constantly only pointing out what's wrong with other people's comments? Sure he says he knows he's infallible but then he won't turn around and show he's thought this through by saying well I can see where... If you believe you're infallible then please tell us what problems you do see in your current theory? Even the quote he posted from Facebook - a great great point and idea - he said that person was essentially wrong for not addressing more variation, or what have you. When I think their idea was one of the best. I stand by my belief that Epiphyte is stuck on his own idea and not open to other ideas concerning what would really help this endangered species. Gathering and breeding members of the same species from different areas would certainly increase the gene pool, an important aspect of all species conservation.

In addition he keeps going off into the woods so to speak and saying things about how if a species can survive in the existing habitat then doesn't that mean it should be, if a pollinator takes to it then doesn't that mean it should be there? Forgive my unintelligent lingo but I'm annoyed. Starlings are kicking a** literally and figuratively. There are so many House Sparrows I don't think most people even know they're invasive. Both of these species compete with Eastern Bluebirds, often costing the latter species their nest sites and thus their ability to reproduce and survive. Does this mean we should say to hell with the Bluebird and put all our votes in for the Sparrows and Starlings?

Better yet, we humans are conquering everything we touch. Does that mean we should be? Does that mean we should put our hands on every inch of this earth? Probably not. If Britney Spears wins an award for best artist of the year does that mean she really is? I digress...

Lastly, I take incredible offense to the nerve Epiphyte has in saying that if the people here really care about the conservation of D. lindenii then they should create a blog, otherwise they don't really care. I beg your pardon, but TALKING (ie running your mouth) does not mean you care. If you want to show your concern then get your butt on the ground or in the lab and do work. I notice when Orchidsarefun says connect with The Million Orchid Project Epiphyte has an excuse for "not yet". And the idea of taking this idea "offline" for a potentially more constructive discussion was also rejected. With those facts in mind I am of the mind that this is more about Epiphyte's love of his idea and attention for his blog. If not then why is his theory not evolving as he learns some of its potholes? Why does he only keep directing us over and over - which is annoying - to the same original BLOG post?

Part of a scientific discussion is not only putting forth your own ideas but also supporting them. Your concern for your subject should speak for itself, in other words you should have done your research and been as best prepared as you can for the opposition, which means including how your theory could overcome these issues before your opponents can even speak. I think that Epiphyte, while perhaps initially deserving of some consideration, has made enemies by ignoring facts, discussions, and legitimate opposition people have put out there. He has repeatedly shot back insisting that everyone else prove themselves while he does not. Just because you can cite some papers that supposedly support your theory doesn't mean all that much. (Some scientists say they can prove Global Warming doesn't exist either. And if you watch Animal Planet you'll find that people can prove Bigfoot exists...). You also have to be able to cite opposing theories and how yours at least has the chance to prove it wrong. (Repetitive I know...) Please address the actual points people have made instead of just excusing yourself away saying you need to learn more and yes you know you're flawed like we all are. Now you've been educated a bit more, what say you with this new info in hand? Please move the discussion you started forward with new arguments.

I just don't appreciate the arrogance shown when people run their mouths about things they prove they need to learn more about but EXPECT everyone else to prove themselves. I think we all waited for Epiphyte's response to the many, many replies given by some clearly knowing individuals and yet he insults this thread by saying that Hummingbirds should be introduced everywhere.

See my point?

[Subrosa]

Migratory birds are considered migratory

[WhiteRabbit]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Fyi folks, hummingbirds are migratory. They really aren't native to anywhere. They are commonly found in certain regions during certain times of the year. The nature of long migrations lends itself to the participating species popping up in areas they may not be commonly seen in.

FWIW - not all hummingbirds are migratory. Anna's is a resident species in the far west US, tho their range is expanding.
I don't think that migratory birds would be considered to be non-native in their historical breeding regions.

[orchidsarefun]

this is Epiphytes quote regarding hummingbirds
"If I had to pick one introduction that could potentially have the greatest positive impact on biodiversity...then I think that I'd have to go with introducing hummingbirds to the rest of the world. Because I'm pretty sure that we all benefit when there's more, rather than less, pollinators. But I could be wrong. And to be clear, in no way shape or form am I advocating or supporting the illegal introduction of any plant or animal. I guess it's impossible for me to say that enough."

I don't think that is controversial at all. Its his OPINION. One can have a chicken or egg argument regarding it ( does a food source have to be present first ? ). If hummingbird species, or anything else ( see California list. See Burro ), are establishing themselves ( and breeding ) because of an additional food source or habitat what does that make the 'new' food source and all those co-dependent ? The Burro is deemed 'protected' in California but is not a natural 'species' by any definition. These new species have adapted, whether triggered by man ( Burro ) or not. I think the context of the hummingbird reference was that pollinators of the PROPOSED new hybrid MAY appear.

The crux of many of the postings seem to be 'upset' over epiphyte78 not justifying/warranting/detailing his proposal sufficiently IN YOUR OWN OPINION. Eventually everything leads back to that. Well, guess what. I and others have made points that are not answered either. Like the classification of species made hundreds of years ago that even now are resulting in reclassifications - from species to hybrids, vice-versa and so on. Certain intergenerics are also being given their own genus as a result of orchid breeding. I think Andrew's question too is important - though personally a leafless orchid may be worth preserving, but in the wild where habitat degradation is inevitable over time? hmmm....I don't know.
Science isn't infallible. Thinking so has given us many of the most impactful man-made disasters in History. Which isn't to say that Science concepts are 'wrong'. I am saying that, and I think ovanoshio alluded to this as well - what is accepted Science fact today, may be BS tomorrow. Science itself has a credibility problem, yes I know its a general statement - for example there is no other explanation for the number of people who don't believe in any type of evolution, despite what Scientists say, find or prove. Or the anti-vaccinations crowd. Or the anti GMO crowd, or climate change......and so on.

I have a healthy scepticism myself, but limited by common-sense. I can agree to disagree with someone when an impasse is reached. epiphyte says that comments don't affect him......the more publicity is better than no publicity example.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

If the ruby-throated hummingbird establishes itself and breeds in an area that it wasn't in before, doesn't that make it a non-native species to that area ? Effectively an invasive species ? The analogy cannot be simpler.
I notice you don't respond to the list of all the non-native species in California.

the definition of invasive species is here
Invasive Species: About NISIC - What is an Invasive Species?
I don't think anyone would consider a hummingbird in the context of 2), so to clarify my intent: I don't know however if any of these new species adapt to the native food source, potentially displacing the 'natives'. Looking at it another way - are a lot of hummingbirds expanding their range because they are being displaced ?
I don't want to digress from the thread discussion, but I thought I would just state the above.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by WhiteRabbit

FWIW - not all hummingbirds are migratory. Anna's is a resident species in the far west US, tho their range is expanding.
I don't think that migratory birds would be considered to be non-native in their historical breeding regions.

I over generalized, but the specific species under discussion is indeed migratory, and living on the east coast I am only familiar with this species. Thanks for the info on other hummers.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

The number of invasive species not created by human introduction, either intentionally or otherwise is small indeed. None come to mind. Species increasing their native ranges through exploitation of new habitats contiguous to their existing range are not invasive, just successful. Case in point the coyote. As a kid growing up in the 60s coyotes were just background in western movies. Then in the late 70s they were starting to turn up in western PA. By the mid/late 80s the first ones were found in suburban Philadelphia. But for all their conquest, they're not invasive, and neither is a Ruby Throated Hummingbird in any part of IL.

[orchidsarefun]

Coyotes are not invasive in the definition of the word and as such they are a good example of a species that has adapted to human habitation ( changed environment ) and of a species displacing another. Mountain lions and wolves were extirpated and the coyote has filled that gap.

Wildlife Directory: Coyote — Living with Wildlife — University of Illinois Extension

However the coyote can and has hybridised with the Red Wolf and has produced fertile offspring. Only time will tell if this hybrid predominates but this hybrid is another example of unintended consequences and one can argue whether or not this has occurred as a result of man-made intervention. Who or what killed off mountain lions and wolves ? Is the presence of this hybrid a good or a bad thing ? Aren't the real-life results of this biology example something akin to what epiphyte is proposing ? I can see similarities, unforeseen or not.

Coyote Hybrids

[calvin_orchidL]

I'd like to point out my post on this thread (#18), made several days ago, where I referenced the million orchid project. Yet somehow:

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Not sure if you heard of it, but there's a million orchid project in Florida.

It makes me wonder whether anyone is reading what anyone else is writing!

There is too much noise on this thread. However, since Carlos has actually addressed my questions, please follow-up with answering my followup questions:

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

1. For me the goal is greater biodiversity.

Please clarify whether greater biodiversity refers to extant species only, man-made hybrids only, or both? If your definition includes hybrids, please explain why the countless new hybrids being registered by the RHS every year don't count.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

2. For the most part, hedging bets is a pretty good strategy for minimizing harm. Given that I'm advocating that we hedge our bets, you're basically asking what's the potential harm of hedging our bets. In other words, you're asking what's the potential harm of trying to minimize potential harm.

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Given the goal you explained in #1, I am assuming 'harm' = 'loss of biodiversity'. In which case, let me rephrase my question:

What's the potential for loss of biodiversity in trying to minimize loss of biodiversity [using your intervention]?

I added that last bit because we're talking about your proposal specifically, and not the other methods of 'hedging our bets' (habitat preservation, etc...)

Given the numerous specific examples of greedy passengers on the terrestrial bus causing 'harm' (as defined above), please provide specific evidence that the epiphytic bus is actually, indeed, a double decker bus with unfilled spots. Given that we have provided specific examples, I only think it's fair you match with the same level of evidence, and not opinion pieces or expert deductions by Benzig or Sandford. I trust you know the difference between a review/expert opinion, and a field study/randomized control trial.

While we're talking about the topic of 'harm', please also explain how many spots are on the bus, how you actually know this (so you don't overbook), how you are sure that a new passenger won't decide to take the seat of another passenger, or maybe take up 2 or 3 seats instead of 1, or act so loud and noisy that other passengers don't want to be on the bus anymore. Please explain how you can predict whether or not the child or maybe grandchild of a new introduced passenger and existing passenger might decide to go to an expensive private university down the road, using up all the resources that the original parents needed to survive? Please explain your strategy in making sure passengers share nicely with each other, instead of being greedy.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

3. Can we accomplish the same goal in cultivation? I don't think we can duplicate natural selection and adapative radiation in cultivation.

You're right, we cannot. However, your goal is biodiversity pure and simple, is it not? And as I mentioned in point number 1, we're perfectly capable of creating biodiversity, crossing genera left right and centre. Why are we relying on adaptive radiation which takes 1000s of years? We've already achieved your goal!

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

4. Hmmm...introduce a fitter lindenii? Well, it's not much of a hedge. Not sure if you heard of it, but there's a million orchid project in Florida. Basically they grow a bunch of native epiphytic orchids from seed and then attach them to street trees. It's pretty great. But imagine if the one million orchids were all clones of the same exact orchid. Even if the clone was wonderful...it would still be only one combination of traits. In essence it would be putting a lot of eggs in one basket. You could even put more eggs in one basket by putting all million orchids in one neighborhood. If that neighborhood was devastated by a hurricane or extreme cold then that would be it. Increasing variety/difference of traits/locations would increase the chances of success.

I understand the concept of a genetic bottleneck, thanks.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

5. The immediate problem that we'd be trying to solve is that lindenii might have too much sameness/uniformity to handle the significant changes to its environment.

You know, you're probably right. In a weird twisted way, I can understand what you're getting at. The environment is changing faster than it has in human history, and you're advocating that we expedite the evolutionary process to keep up with it by introducing novel genetic material.

I get that. However, the point myself and others have made many times is that we don't think you appreciate the fragility of ecosystems, and the impact an introduced alien can have on existing species. There is abundant evidence supporting examples of harm in carrying out this proposal in the terrestrial 'bus' sphere, so when it all boils down, your entire proposal relies on the single assumption that the 'epiphytic bus' is different and immune to these negative impacts. Based upon your blogs, this incredibly important assumption is based on only your own deductions ('epiphyte maths), and a single opinion piece published in the 90s. Take away this assumption, and suddenly all the evidence against doing this in the terrestrial sphere applies to your proposal.

In a way, you've jumped the gun a bit. You are advocating strongly for this intervention using epiphyte maths as the backbone, but you haven't even supported and validated the initial theory of 'epiphyte maths'. Looking at a branch and saying - "hey, it looks pretty bare. It must have microniches!" is not scientific validation. Nor is a single passage from an old text published in the 1990s.

Perhaps if we were working on a blank slate that we were repopulating, this proposal would make a lot of sense: Choosing a collection of hybrids and species that can expand and fill an ecosystem, evolving over years to fill the microniches (like Hawaii, like Galapagos). However, I think the general consensus here is that the potential risks of harm due to the unsupported backbone of 'epiphyte maths' is simply not enough to justify the potential benefits of doing this in an established ecosystem.

To use orchidsarefun's example:

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Who or what killed off mountain lions and wolves ? Is the presence of this hybrid a good or a bad thing ?

The answer is 'We don't know.' We have no idea. This has happened, we don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe the coyotes did displace/kill the mountain lions and wolves, and maybe they didn't. Someone is probably writing a pHD on it, and we might have an idea in a few years. But are we really willing to risk the last remaining d. lindenii on this unknown variable which we can't possibly predict, when other efforts (breeding the species for genetic diversity in labs, further researching and studying ex situ culture techniques, habitat protection etc...) don't involve this unknown variable?

I hope Carlos and other readers can appreciate the gravity of this unknown when it comes to this proposal. It doesn't take a scientist to understand this concept - to ignore it is pure foolishness.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Coyotes are not invasive in the definition of the word and as such they are a good example of a species that has adapted to human habitation ( changed environment ) and of a species displacing another. Mountain lions and wolves were extirpated and the coyote has filled that gap.

Wildlife Directory: Coyote — Living with Wildlife — University of Illinois Extension

However the coyote can and has hybridised with the Red Wolf and has produced fertile offspring. Only time will tell if this hybrid predominates but this hybrid is another example of unintended consequences and one can argue whether or not this has occurred as a result of man-made intervention. Who or what killed off mountain lions and wolves ? Is the presence of this hybrid a good or a bad thing ? Aren't the real-life results of this biology example something akin to what epiphyte is proposing ? I can see similarities, unforeseen or not.

Coyote Hybrids

Are you seriously asking what killed off wolves and mountain lions? Do you in any way think there is an answer other than "man"? "Unintended consequences" presupposes human activity. What act are wolf/coyote hybrids an unintended consequence of?

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Are you seriously asking what killed off wolves and mountain lions? Do you in any way think there is an answer other than "man"? "Unintended consequences" presupposes human activity. What act are wolf/coyote hybrids an unintended consequence of?

Maybe you should share your superior knowledge on this subject with Calvin as this is his quote
"The answer is 'We don't know.' We have no idea. This has happened, we don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe the coyotes did displace/kill the mountain lions and wolves, and maybe they didn't. Someone is probably writing a pHD on it, and we might have an idea in a few years."

CalvinL - just so you know - I am not following this saga on any other forum/s. I only can acknowledge what is said on this forum.
You also say this : "Given that we have provided specific examples, I only think it's fair you match with the same level of evidence, and not opinion pieces or expert deductions by Benzig or Sandford. I trust you know the difference between a review/expert opinion, and a field study/randomized control trial. "
I apologise if I haven't picked up on these specific examples in this thread, if so can you please provide them or the reference number for me to re-read.

[Subrosa]

Mountain lions and wolves eat coyotes. The only threat coyotes pose to mountain lions is as a disease vector. They pose the same threat to wolves, along with the aforementioned ability to hybridize with them. They do not physically displace either species. The demise of wolves and mountain lions from their historic ranges is due to systematic eradication by humans. No serious person, let alone any serious biologist disputes this. Your puerile attempt to play Calvin against me is most unflattering, yet completely in character. I somehow think that if he steps back from the fray he'll realize he mispoke on that point. Because it's an undisputed fact. Claiming otherwise is to attempt to spread something that would best be spread on your garden. What exactly is it you feel you have to gain?