A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[calvin_orchidL]

Dear orchidsarefun,

Can I try to clarify what you're saying so we're on the same page?

1) Species are inevitably going to go extinct
2) If they go extinct, dependent species will go extinct as well
3) Loss of biodiversity = BAD
4) We should make hardy hybrids that the dependent species can adapt to so once the original species goes extinct, we can still have some version of what it was, and the dependent species can evolve and continue to exist along with this hybrid.

The problem with this (which I hope you can see), is that step #4 (introducing hybrids into the wild) will expedite #1 (species going extinct). How does this make any sense?

Taken to an extreme, it's like saying:

"The trees in the amazon are all going to get cut down one day. The birds will have no where to live. This is bad. We should just cut down the trees now, and build hardy metal ones, so the birds have a place to live."

Hybrids are not metal trees, and that is not the point of my analogy. The point is that Epiphyte's conservation plan actually leads to destruction of what currently exists in some weird attempt to engineer the course of evolution.

To be honest, it's incredibly arrogant and audacious to imply that anyone possesses enough knowledge and understanding of natural ecosystems to make deductions like the ones Epiphyte has proposed. People spend their lives studying single species interactions - it's ignorant to simplify a system and draw brash conclusions like "If the Dendrophylax hybrid is good enough for a pollinator and a fungus, then how can I argue that it's not good enough for me?"

Good enough for him?! These species do not exist to be good enough for Epiphyte. Can we pause and reflect that the precise reason that makes orchids so fascinating and incredible is that they have evolved to such a narrow niche, with specific pollinators? The fact that, at some point in time, the environment in the Everglades was PERFECT for having a leafless wonder such as dendrophylax, and that in itself is worth protecting? It is not a matter of being a purist - it is a matter of appreciating the incredible elegance that nature has honed down over millenia, and understanding the need to protect it without replacing it with some dandelion of a hybrid.
Epiphyte believes that if this human made hybrid is more fit, it deserves to take over the swamps in Florida and out-compete native dendrophylax, because this is somehow better for the orchid kingdom. If I may pose the question - Is there really anything spectacular about the dandelion? It's certainly 'hercuthermal', supports MANY pollinating species...is this then our ultimate goal as caretakes of this earth? To produce a single hybrid super orchid that out-competes other native species, can survive anywhere? Sounds like a crappy world to live in.

Please understand that the personal attacks on epiphyte are arising due to patience being worn thin. Not only are his arguments not scientifically sound, but all polite and kind attempts to help educate him or lead him in the correct direction have been in vain!

We have provided evidence that introducing alien species into the wild, in general, is a bad thing. But Epiphyte is not satisfied, because he doesn't 'feel' that orchids are the same (I don't know what this is based upon). Further evidence is supplied specifically regarding the harm of invasive alien orchids. Again, Epiphyte is not satisfied, surmising that EPIPHYTIC orchids are not the same (again, because he 'feels' that there are more microniches for epiphytes compared to terrestrials? Where does this feeling come from? Is there actual evidence to this? Does he know about all the fungi that inhabit a branch that appears bare? Or all the birds that use it as a landing spot? Or all the insects that rely on the bark to build nests? I can go on, and on, and on. The answer, as a matter of fact, is that NO ONE knows the complexity of these environments.

Yet, no matter how much information is provided, there will never be enough to make Epiphyte reflect on his theory, revise it, perhaps realize it's a bad idea. There has been no progress at all!

I don't understand how we are the close-minded ones.

Hybrids will always exist, in conservatories, gardens, and perhaps the odd escape into the wild. They will never need natural pollinators because as long as they exist there will be humans who will be interested in crossing them, breeding them, and creating more hybrids. That is fine. It is wonderful. It is our human urge to create.

But to somehow insinuate that a hybrid will 'save the orchid world' - this isn't based on anything beyond unscientific theories!

[Dillon123]

Hey carlos, can you tell me more about the laboratory in jamaica about hybridization of den. lindenii and funalis because I havent heard of it before.

[orchidsarefun]

Calvin - I reread my posts - carefully - in response to this specific thread subject and I don't understand how you arrive at your points 1, 3 and 4 based on what I said.
2 is what I imply and in theory would be correct if co-dependent ( on the Ghost Orchid ) species are not ultimately able to adapt to loss of the source of the dependency. Isurus79 has replied that "And no species will die if the ghost orchid goes away. " And no climate change attribution ? OK, I suppose those statements are made after exhaustive studies on the subject ? It appears that there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides.
I don't want to be dragged into a multi-forum and multi-year argument where much of the argument appears to be people communicating at cross-purposes. I stand by what I have said and anyone misinterpreting that I am advocating mass hybridisation to save species is entitled to that opinion. I personally think its "incredibly arrogant and audacious" ( to recontextualise your words ) to try and shut down any type of thinking that you think you disagree with.

[gnathaniel]

Wow, some of you all need to chill out and start playing nice! You know who you are...

Yes, Carlos ('epiphyte78') has put forward some contentious and not terribly well-thought-out ideas here. He also linked to a pretty fascinating paper about the role of hybridization in the evolution and population dynamics of Epidendrum. Other studies suggest this is common throughout Orchidaceae and likely a significant factor in their unusually high speciation and diversity. Not too majorly controversial, right?

I understand that the volitional human aspect of Carlos's 'modest proposal' is troubling to some, and I'd agree generally that unintended/unforeseen consequences typically abound when humans go a-meddling. But we always do meddle, and now have an ecological footprint so vast that we are quite actively shifting many natural equilibria whether we intend to or not.

Since 'education' has repeatedly been brought up in condescending ways but as far as I saw no one's talked about some literature that IMO is pretty relevant, here's your assigned reading:

The Trouble with Wilderness

And pretty much anything coming up near the top of the following searches:

Ecological Engineering--Google Scholar

Assisted Migration--Google Scholar


Apologies if I come across as rude or dismissive here in any way and if so please call me out on it, in a friendly way of course.

[calvin_orchidL]

orchidsarefun - thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure, hence I meekly and hopefully non-facetiously wrote 'try'.

I have no desire to make enemies, and much desire to learn from present and future input from all of you. Peace.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Nat, I did download the wilderness piece, and read it. I am saying this with all due respect, and maybe I was tired when I read it, but I don't see how it is relevant to introducing man-made hybrids in the wild with the goal of causing ghost orchid extinction in the wild, replacing it with some hybrid, all in the name of conservation. IMHO wilderness should stay wild, whenever possible.

Regarding ecological engineering and assisted migration, these may be justified where human activity has destroyed natural systems and the damage needs to be undone (examples: restoring a drained or filled wetland; restoring a channelized or straightened stream; I know less about assisted migration).

[Subrosa]

I also read the wilderness article, Nat, and also agree that it has little to do with the exact situation. But on the other hand, it speaks directly to a situation I'm in. To put it briefly, there are a lot of endangered/extirpated plant species in PA that are unregulated at the federal level. This is largely due to these species being endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the very limited amount of this geographic region within state borders, and the fact that most of this is currently Philadelphia International Airport, with most of the rest being a landfill which has been somewhat reclaimed. Suitable habitat for these species was mostly altered beyond their ability to adapt.
But the construction of housing developments and business parks which is rampant in the transition zone between this region and the Piedmont region creates many microhabitats which can support these species. Large retention basins, some of which have standing water year round are installed to handle runoff, and make new wetlands in the process. I'm currently working with propagating several of these species for introduction into these areas. I see no issue with "playing god" in an a created environment such as this as long the species introduced pose no substantial risk of escaping. These species are historically native about 30 miles away. If they could do that, these species wouldn't currently be endangered and extirpated within the Commonwealth. But introducing hybrids or species into a habitat where they pose even the slightest risk of hybridizing with an endangered/fragile species is a different situation entirely. Additionally, my project breaks no laws regarding the plants themselves, although I will freely admit that, letter of the law, in most of these areas I will be trespassing.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Subrosa, you won't be trespassing if you ask permission. For the airport (for example), if you are working with their permission in non-secure parts of their property (detention basins serving the parking lots for example), they may be totally OK with you planting rare plants in their basins (Local headline "Airport works with local conservationist(s) to return rare species to Philadelphia"). It can be be good PR for them.

[Subrosa]

The airport itself isn't on my list. It's completely surrounded by a state park, which opens up a can of worms legally speaking. I'm working strictly with suitable areas created by construction projects.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

Nat, I did download the wilderness piece, and read it. I am saying this with all due respect, and maybe I was tired when I read it, but I don't see how it is relevant to introducing man-made hybrids in the wild with the goal of causing ghost orchid extinction in the wild, replacing it with se hybrid, all in the name of conservation. IMHO wilderness should stay wild, whenever possible.

This comment is a prime example of what I meant when I said that there is a lot of communication at cross-purposes. Who wants to introduce man-made hybrids in the wild "with the goal of causing ghost-orchid extinction in the wild ? " No-one on this thread that I have read through. Please re-read epiphyte's analogy of a double-decker bus.
Further - the Wilderness article is pertinent to a macro-discussion and would urge everyone to read from at least Page 23. It offers a different view worthy of consideration - especially in the context of Rainforest preservation and human habitation.
Subrosa - you are introducing new species into areas that have been habitat degraded for the native species with a naive 'hope' that they pose no substantial risk of escaping. You have circumvented the evolutionary process for native species by displacing them with other species ? I am making no comment on this work, but highlighting the apparent contradiction. Evidently its OK to displace a species with a species but not a hybrid to complement - not displace - a species ?
Lastly, the underlying irony is that many of the so-called orchid species ( and others ) were allocated as such by botanists hundreds of years ago. Hybrids of species were allocated as species and so on. To this day corrections are taking place. The Ghost Orchid may itself be a hybrid of extinct species. The hybrid that epiphyte mentions as a possible solution to habitat degradation may one day establish itself and then be considered a species ! If the powers that be allocate this hybrid as a new-found species that does in fact complement the growing requirements of other Ghost Orchids, would epiphyte's 'idea' then be OK ?