a horribly ambitious and terribly long project

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

(Remainder snipped by OW)
Sentence #2 above does not follow from sentence #1 above.
In fact, implementing sentence #2 would likely cause great harm to wild native orchid populations.

If you were capable of fleshing out your argument...then wouldn't you have already done so?

Let's say ovanoshio picks the most suitable forest in Florida for Sobennikoffia robusta and attaches it to the most suitable location on the most suitable tree. Would this be likely to cause great harm to the wild orchid populations? Nope, because it's doubtful that it would provide any competition. Why? Because its proliferation would depend on the presence of two things...

1. pollinator
2. fungus

Sobennikoffia robusta can't reproduce if it isn't pollinated. And even if it is pollinated what are the chances that the fungus the seeds need to germinate will be present on trees where they land? Perhaps the necessary fungus is only in Madagascar?

We might be able to overcome these obstacles by trying to cross Sobennikoffia robusta with Dendrophylax lindenii. Let's say that the necessary traits are dominant in the hybrid. So this is what ovanoshio attaches to the most suitable tree in Florida.

Now, how fit shall we say this hybrid is? If you want to argue that it's not at all fit...then clearly it wouldn't present a threat to Dendrophylax lindenii. The hybrid would simply be killed by disease, pests, temperatures that were too hot/cold and so on. Nature would surely indicate that the combination of inputs was a fail. But if the hybrid is extremely fit...if the combination of inputs is a wild success...then how would it harm the wild populations of Dendrophylax lindenii?

Let's say that the hybrid brings two positives to the table...sun tolerance and drought tolerance. How would it hurt the population of Dendrophylax lindenii for it to have greater sun/drought tolerance? How would it hurt Dendrophylax lindenii for its population size to quadruple?

Infusing a wild population of monopodial orchids with greater genetic diversity can only increase its fitness. You're not going to decrease a carpenter's fitness by giving him access to better tools.

"Dendrophylax lindenii" is simply the name that we give to a distinct population of epiphytic monopodial orchids in Florida. But it's really just a pool of genetic material...and each individual carries it's own entirely unique set of traits.

And each individual wants to be Abraham...

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; - Genesis 22:17

So each and every "Dendrophylax lindenii" wants to be Abraham. Maybe there's a "Dendrophylax lindenii" named Chris King. Chris King wants to be Abraham.

Does it matter to Chris King who Sarah is? If Sarah will proliferate his genes then would he care if she happens to be a Sobennikoffia or a Sobenniphylax? No, of course not.

Do we want to introduce Chris King to Sarah? Of course. We want to put Chris King's genes in the best possible vehicle. Like, why put Chris King's genes in a horse drawn carriage when you could put them in a bullet train?

The challenge is that we can't simply look at a vehicle in order to determine how good it is. So if we want Chris King's genes to be in the future...it would behoove us to put his pollen in as many vehicles as possible.

Put Chris King's pollen in Sarah, Amanda, Alexis, Carrie, Robyn, Yaraslava...I'm running out of lady names.

[gravotrope]

Originally Posted by isurus79

I disagree. Academic discussions don't begin with an introduction described by their authors as "a flashy gimmick to get people thinking about how unwitting this ecological shift is."

Ovanoshiro has attempted to explain several complex scientific issues (global warming, genetic, ecology, etc.) and has only proven that he clearly has zero knowledge of said topics and has no background in science what-so-ever. My irritation with this thread has reached a boiling point so I will unsubscribing before I say something rude. I'm out.

I wasn't trying to have an academic discussion, but definitely relate ideas grounded in scientific principle. Clearly to you one must be an expert, or have a phd in order to be considered scientific. Neither of which I claimed to be.

I will not concede that an invasive snake killing an orchid in its habitat is impossible or absurd, but this thread is NOT about snakes. If you want to make it about snakes and can't stop thinking about them, then see a therapist about that.

from dictionary.reference.com
sci·en·tif·ic
[sahy-uhn-tif-ik]

adjective
1.
of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies.
2.
occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts.
3.
regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures.
4.
systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

I called it a flashy gimmick out of respect to the people who don't believe it is probable or possible in order to make it about the more important tenets drawn from the entire discussion so far. This stuff isn't worth getting angry about...But I should say I don't have to be a scientist or professor in order to be scientific. If you think I do, then that too is your problem.

The beauty of science is the same as the beauty of religion, it is accessible to all with interest, regardless of ability. I am not a Tibetan throat singer, nor can I create beautiful sand mandalas to appreciate the impermanence of life. I am not a geneticist, but I minored in chemistry and have studied the scientific method since grade school.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Monopodial orchids make the world a better place. Clearly we should want to preserve the things that make the world a better place.

Marine algae makes the world a much better place than orchids. Why not salinate some freshwater systems and encourage their growth? Grass is a much more economically important family of plants than orchids so why not cut down those pesky orchid harbouring trees and plant more grasses? Or is nature our garden and evolution is governed by survival of the prettiest?

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

Just read post 41. I'm out too. Many years on Usenet has taught me that quoting bible verse in a discussion that involves evolutionary biology is a slippery slope to Godwin's law.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Marine algae makes the world a much better place than orchids. Why not salinate some freshwater systems and encourage their growth? Grass is a much more economically important family of plants than orchids so why not cut down those pesky orchid harbouring trees and plant more grasses? Or is nature our garden and evolution is governed by survival of the prettiest?

So everybody should stop growing orchids and grow marine algae instead? Why stop there? Why not have everybody quit their day jobs as well? Then we'll have so much time to allocate to growing marine algae.

We'd certainly have an abundance of marine algae...but unfortunately we'd have a shortage of everything else. So we'd all die.

What you're suggesting is an inefficient allocation of resources. Value would be destroyed.

But if you think it's worth it to allocate your own resources to growing marine algae...then go for it. If other people derive value from how you're using society's limited resources...then they'll give you positive feedback (money). Markets help ensure that your control over society's limited resources doesn't exceed the value you create for others. The result is the efficient allocation of resources (the balance that creates the most value).

Originally Posted by Andrew

Just read post 41. I'm out too. Many years on Usenet has taught me that quoting bible verse in a discussion that involves evolutionary biology is a slippery slope to Godwin's law.

LOL...I knew that I should have talked about the Great Pumpkin instead.

I'm the biggest atheist in the world but somehow I manage to find so much treasure in the bible. Why is that?

In the beginning there was the Garden of Eden. Abundance and no sacrifice. When we got kicked out of the garden there was scarcity and sacrifice. Something always has to be given up in order to gain. There are always trade-offs.

Orchid seeds sacrifice endosperm for greater abundance and dispersal. As a result they are forced to rely on fungus to germinate. But clearly it's a very successful strategy. The benefit exceeds the cost.

Orchids sacrifice valuable resources to pollinators...how do they determine the value maximizing balance? They'll decrease their fitness if they give away too much reward for pollinators...but there's a chance that they'll decrease their fitness if they don't give pollinators an adequate incentive to visit.

The bible is jam packed full of examples of sacrifice...and so is nature. The bible can help us understand how people have tried to overcome scarcity...and these lessons can help us understand how plants and animals try to overcome scarcity as well.

And it makes me sad that some people are so narrow minded that they completely fail to see the timeless truth contained within the bible.

We're not so evolved. In the Bible they debated whether they should make sacrifices to Baal or Yahweh. Which deity would provide the most abundance? Now we debate whether we should give our taxes to conservatives or republicans. Which party will ensure the greatest economic prosperity?

The truth is that the greatest abundance stems from allowing people to choose who they make their sacrifices to. When producers are forced to compete for sacrifices...then will they be incentivized to provide more for less.

You don't want to sacrifice your time to me because I quoted the bible? LOL Dang! How else are we going to talk about Godwin's law?

[SOS]

Carlos, you assume you speak for many.

I don't want some terrible intergeneric hybrid take the place of a species. Many of these have come and gone so quickly you've never seen them because they were as I said, terrible. Terrible looking flowers, lousy growers, and nowhere near an improvement on the species.

If you're really that honest about lindenii (or any other species) being just a small bit of genetic code, please tell the course that need be taken to derive that out of hybrids? Every species grower grasps that simple concept that you can remake a Cattleya Mini Purple with a walkeriana and a pumila. How do you get either species back out if one were to become non existent? Your hypothetical Sobenikoffia x Dendrophylax is much the same problem.

If I have a Cattleya briegeri and Cattleya bradei and I make 1000 plants and even 10% are survived in other's collections. Someone uses one of those breeds ((briegeri x bradei)x briegeri). I've been studying Hoffmansegella for years and I will be honest, I probably couldn't tell that hybrid apart from a briegeri. Imagine that is what is then accepted as briegeri. I don't know if you include that in the way you analogize the book of Chronicles to how you think your epiphytic world acts, but it would be a great loss to me and many other if that fictitious briegeri took the place of the real deal. I don't want to breed or make conservation efforts with a plant that is 75% the species. What you propose seems in great conflict to how I see that issue.



Next, how can you so boldly say that your intergeneric hybrid would have no effect on standing populations of lindenii? Do you know that a back cross wouldn't happen? Do you know that it wouldn't create a greater vector for disease or insect that would threaten the plants?

I'm all for making Glicenstein hybrids and finding out novel new crosses but when you don't give a shit about the progeny of them as long as you see them hiking, eating lunch on a cafe patio, etc. it makes a very big difference. Read about Euglossine bees and their impact on creating natural hybrids in a short manner of time. The pollinator for lindenii isn't that aggressive that the bee is, but to assume that it's ok to introduce whatever the hell you like into nature because it's got a specific relationship in germinating with a specific fungus or specific pollinator, you're wrong. If you wanted to go put some cuthbertsonii hybrids next to wild populations of the species because you can, I implore you to rethink your role in anthropocentrism.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by SOS

Carlos, you assume you speak for many.

Where do I assume to speak for many? Quote me please.

Originally Posted by SOS

I don't want some terrible intergeneric hybrid take the place of a species. Many of these have come and gone so quickly you've never seen them because they were as I said, terrible. Terrible looking flowers, lousy growers, and nowhere near an improvement on the species.

I'm trying to find aspects of this that are actually relevant. If Sobenniphylax was a terrible grower...then how could it possibly beat Dendrophylax lindenii? Perhaps Sobenniphylax is a horribly slow grower...but it's far more cold tolerant than Dendrophylax lindenii. In this case perhaps the tortoise could beat the hare.

If Sobenniphylax beat Dendrophylax lindenii...then you can say that Sobenniphylax is a terrible terrible monster...but clearly nature decided that it's more fit. So you can subjectively hate it all you'd like...but it's a "better" plant by nature's standards.

Originally Posted by SOS

If you're really that honest about lindenii (or any other species) being just a small bit of genetic code, please tell the course that need be taken to derive that out of hybrids? Every species grower grasps that simple concept that you can remake a Cattleya Mini Purple with a walkeriana and a pumila. How do you get either species back out if one were to become non existent? Your hypothetical Sobenikoffia x Dendrophylax is much the same problem.

Seriously guy? You're not thinking things through. If walkeriana somehow becomes extinct...well at least you have 50% of its genetic material in Mini Purple.

Whose responsibility is it though to ensure that walkeriana doesn't go extinct? Yours? How many divisions of your walkeriana have you shared with your plant friends?

Originally Posted by SOS

If I have a Cattleya briegeri and Cattleya bradei and I make 1000 plants and even 10% are survived in other's collections. Someone uses one of those breeds ((briegeri x bradei)x briegeri). I've been studying Hoffmansegella for years and I will be honest, I probably couldn't tell that hybrid apart from a briegeri. Imagine that is what is then accepted as briegeri. I don't know if you include that in the way you analogize the book of Chronicles to how you think your epiphytic world acts, but it would be a great loss to me and many other if that fictitious briegeri took the place of the real deal. I don't want to breed or make conservation efforts with a plant that is 75% the species. What you propose seems in great conflict to how I see that issue.

If the pseudo briegeri replaces the real briegeri in the wild...then clearly its fitter. If the pseudo briegeri replaces the real briegeri in cultivation...then it's not so clear that it was fitter. Perhaps it was simply prettier.

The AOS and their stupid judging encourages survival of the prettiest. So we end up with pansies...orchids that wouldn't survive a day in the wild. Do you want a proliferation of pansies? Not me. I want orchids to get tougher and tougher...not softer and weaker.

I want fitter orchids. This is the part you don't seem to have a handle on. Species are great because nature has found them to be fit...but if a hybrid can outperform its parents in nature...then it has a better combination of traits. It has a better chance of surviving. It has a better chance of making our future brighter.

Originally Posted by SOS

Next, how can you so boldly say that your intergeneric hybrid would have no effect on standing populations of lindenii? Do you know that a back cross wouldn't happen? Do you know that it wouldn't create a greater vector for disease or insect that would threaten the plants?

I said that Sobenniphylax would have no effect on standing populations of lindenii? I don't think I said that. I have no idea if Sobenniphylax is even possible...so I couldn't possibly know whether or not a back cross would occur.

How could Sobenniphylax create a greater vector for disease or insects? Are you imagining a large population of Sobenniphylax existing in the wild? If so, how did the population get so large if it's so susceptible to disease and pests? Again, this all falls under the basic concept of "fitness".

I don't know which one is the fittest... Sobennikoffia robusta or Dendrophylax lindenii or some hybrid. But it should stand to reason that we should want to find out. Let's have nature sort them out.

Orchids throw a lot of combinations at nature. Each seed pod contains a gazillion seeds...and each seed is a unique combination of inputs. Obviously it's a pretty effective strategy. If you throw enough ideas out there then chances are that some will be winners.

The goal is to discover who the winners are. This means constantly challenging the reigning champs. We don't want to limit their exposure to competition. We don't want to give them immunity because they are incumbent. On the contrary, we should be facilitating competition. The more creative destruction...the greater the fitness of epiphytic orchids...the more secure their future. The term for this is antifragile.

Originally Posted by SOS

I'm all for making Glicenstein hybrids and finding out novel new crosses but when you don't give a shit about the progeny of them as long as you see them hiking, eating lunch on a cafe patio, etc. it makes a very big difference. Read about Euglossine bees and their impact on creating natural hybrids in a short manner of time. The pollinator for lindenii isn't that aggressive that the bee is, but to assume that it's ok to introduce whatever the hell you like into nature because it's got a specific relationship in germinating with a specific fungus or specific pollinator, you're wrong. If you wanted to go put some cuthbertsonii hybrids next to wild populations of the species because you can, I implore you to rethink your role in anthropocentrism.

Again and again...if I put hybrid cuthbertsoniis next to a wild population...then nature is going to pick the winner. Nature is going to vote for whichever combination of inputs/traits is the fittest.

Anthropocentrism is where humans decide who the winners should be. It's AOS orchid judging. That's where orchids are judged by their looks. If you're concerned with anthropocentrism...then you're really barking up the wrong tree. I want orchids to be judged by nature.

If somebody manages to create a fitter orchid...as determined by nature...then that is something that is truly worthy of award. If a hybrid cuthbertsonii beats the species by thriving in marginal habitats...then whoever created that hybrid should be recognized and praised for giving us a greater abundance of a nice and fit orchid.

[Jayfar]

[epiphyte78]

Ran across this photo of a Boa constrictor squishing Microgramma vacciniifolia. It reminded me of this thread!

The Microgramma vacciniifolia on my tree gets squished by a family of these guys...


Raccoon With Epiphytes 2 by epiphyte78, on Flickr

Raccoon's in a rude mood.