A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[jcec1]

I can see a fundamental error in releasing a hybrid into the wild. It is known that hybrids do not come true, so if this hybrid does sexually reproduce in the wild, then progeny with unknown characteristics will then be in the wild. So whilst the initial hybrid may be innocuous there is know way of knowing what traits subsequent generations will have. Many other introductions have been species which can be very destructive, but at least have 'stable' and known characteristics.

[epiphyte78]

isurus79 and Subrosa, I've admitted over and over that I might be wrong. I'm human, I'm fallible, I make mistakes...I'm a blind man only feeling one part of an elephant. But just telling me that I'm wrong over and over in different ways isn't helpful to myself or anybody else interested in actually learning about evolution, biology, conservation and orchids. What's helpful is if you actually cite some relevant sources that refute my own sources. Of course, this does require more work than simply saying that I'm wrong in different ways.

In my latest blog entry (here it is in case you missed it...Herclivation), I've cited numerous high quality sources that I believe support my theory. If you're capable of refuting those sources, then please go ahead and do so. If you're incapable of refuting them, or too lazy to bother even trying to refute them, then your perspective on the topic has been duly noted. Thanks for your contribution.

But given the fact that neither of you think the topic is important enough create even one blog entry for...I don't think either of you are here because you're genuinely concerned about Dendrophylax or even conservation in general. But then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps you've started some threads in the past on the topic of conservation? If so, I'd certainly be interested to see them.

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

To add to all the misinformed and misguided drivel posted about D. lindenii, now epiphyte78 seems to be moving the subject to hummingbirds and introducing them to the rest of the world!! Unbelievable!! Not to mention that if it we're done the poor birds would starve because the plants they feed on are all in the Americas.

What percentage of the plants in Southern California that hummingbirds regularly visit are natives?

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

The text you quote also includes two words apparently invented by epiphyte78 (herclivation and transolation) which have absolutely no meaning to anyone except epiphyte78. But I will admit that in this regard, epiphyte78 has inspired me. I have decided to create my own made-up word. The word is bloefleuvinate. It is pronounced blo-FLOO-vih-nate. It is a verb which means to actively avoid reading about incoherent, half-baked and misguided ideas promoted by the chronically and unrepentantly uninformed.

All words were invented by somebody. My theory doesn't have a word for it, that I know of, so I took the liberty of giving it one. Not unlike taking the liberty of naming a new hybrid. Now, instead of having to say "a theory that considers the possibility of facilitating the adaptive radiation of epiphytic orchids via translocation and/or hybridization"...I can simply say "herclivation". That's pretty convenient. Language, and even math, is great like that.

And yeah, I meant to type "translocation" rather than "transolation". Sorry about that. I guess you didn't get a chance to look at any of the sources that gnathaniel linked to in his very first post in this thread. Well...better late than never.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

isurus79 and Subrosa, I've admitted over and over that I might be wrong. I'm human, I'm fallible, I make mistakes...I'm a blind man only feeling one part of an elephant. But just telling me that I'm wrong over and over in different ways isn't helpful to myself or anybody else interested in actually learning about evolution, biology, conservation and orchids. What's helpful is if you actually cite some relevant sources that refute my own sources. Of course, this does require more work than simply saying that I'm wrong in different ways.

In my latest blog entry (here it is in case you missed it...Herclivation), I've cited numerous high quality sources that I believe support my theory. If you're capable of refuting those sources, then please go ahead and do so. If you're incapable of refuting them, or too lazy to bother even trying to refute them, then your perspective on the topic has been duly noted. Thanks for your contribution.

But given the fact that neither of you think the topic is important enough create even one blog entry for...I don't think either of you are here because you're genuinely concerned about Dendrophylax or even conservation in general. But then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps you've started some threads in the past on the topic of conservation? If so, I'd certainly be interested to see them.




What percentage of the plants in Southern California that hummingbirds regularly visit are natives?



All words were invented by somebody. My theory doesn't have a word for it, that I know of, so I took the liberty of giving it one. Not unlike taking the liberty of naming a new hybrid. Now, instead of having to say "a theory that considers the possibility of facilitating the adaptive radiation of epiphytic orchids via translocation and/or hybridization"...I can simply say "herclivation". That's pretty convenient. Language, and even math, is great like that.

And yeah, I meant to type "translocation" rather than "transolation". Sorry about that. I guess you didn't get a chance to look at any of the sources that gnathaniel linked to in his very first post in this thread. Well...better late than never.

If you really want to learn more (and I think you do), please take some conservation or biology classes at a local community college. I think you'd a) really enjoy them and; b) your ideas would benefit greatly from a more thorough understanding of basic biology. I don't have the time or energy to address every point you've made and I certainly don't have the time to make a blog. OB comments are as close to having a blog as I'd care to deal with. I'm also done with this thread. I'm out.

[Subrosa]

My last post wasn't unintended to point out your mistakes, and didn't. It was intended to discuss how others should deal with your mistakes, as that is a topic which has been brought up, and for which there is actually room for serious debate.

[orchidsarefun]

epiphyte78 - thanks for referring to this project
Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden > Science & Conservation > The Million Orchid Project
It appears that there are a number of threatened species in Florida and at least this group is doing something tangible about the situation. I don't know if you have mentioned your proposal/s to them, but that would be a good place to start if you want buy-in of any sort. They would ( presumably ) have the qualified 'scientists' to rationally debate your points ? Better than the anonymous internet ? They may already be doing something with the Ghost Orchid ? If they want a Ghost Orchid propagator, then I have a contact. I don't know if propagating from a 'wild' pod or using one produced by an orchid enthusiast and then releasing seedlings into the wild would add to the gene pool, or not.........maybe increase resistance to sowly-changing habitat ? I don't know, don't claim to know - but its an idea. Not an OMG he is crazy statement to parse.
I asked you to respond to some of the suggestions/issues/concerns raised - and that only led to more parsing of your responses and more criticism. Maybe you should take this offline if you are serious because its evident no matter what you say certain people have already made their judgement/s.
Finally - everyone should look up the definition of a bigot and the definition of crazy, compare and contrast - and come to their own conclusions about the behaviour displayed on this thread.

and this is the quote that I had in the back of the mind that I suddenly remembered - in the context of this thread :
The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

apologies for droning on, but epiphyte's analogy of the hummingbird in California is actually appropriate. It took me a while to twig, but better late than never ?
It also relates to my personal experience in IL. I photographed a hummingbird ( same type ) that has appeared in my garden for the last 2 years and had asked an 'expert' what type of hummingbird it was. She didn't know, but stated that it wasn't a native hummingbird. I certainly grow non-native plants in my garden that probably attracted them.
Looking at the bigger picture then, with this context in mind
- certain species of hummingbird - yep pollinators too - are excellent examples of a species that appear co-dependent on the presence of non-native food sources?
- is this a good thing or a bad thing for the 'scientists' ?
- do we advocate for the removal of non-native food sources because, well .........just because. The co-dependent hummingbirds then disappear.
- do we say it is what it is - but then advocate for the removal of non-native hummingbirds in pristine preserves, because their presence would indicate, probably, non-native food sources ?
- if the Ghost hybrid IS introduced - and AGAIN, I am not advocating for that - or maybe after a decades-long study that reaches that conclusion - and attracts pollinators that wouldn't normally be there - wouldn't that be increasing biodiversity in the strict scientific definition ?
Epiphyte - I stand by my previous comment regarding taking this offline, but appreciate you raising this issue as it certainly has made me think.

[gravotrope]

i like the million orchid project. Dr Carl Lewis, the botanical garden director, knows what he is doing. they will not all be in the same spot, and i am certain it will be a genetically diverse group of plants from different parents. this is the traditional snapshot method of conservation, which i dont at all have a problem with, but in the long run in Florida...it just may be a waste of effort like most of the past 100 years of development down here.

We need to ask ourselves to define a species, because in doing so we find it is not simple. Flower size, shape, and color actually end up being extremely poor identifiers of a species not as previously thought, and highlight the importance of molecular phylogenetics. outside of one species, biodiversity is simply the number of different species in an area, but as more time passes it is being used to express the amount of differentiation in total, inclusive of species and species variants, or at least that is where i see it having the most value. all plants have the same gene for metabolizing sugar, therefore it is highly likely that all plants whether they produce lignin or just cellulose, or flowers or no flowers are related. this is the introduction to understanding the machinery of evolution.

there are flowers in california that need to cross pollinate to set seed, and yet outliers of these populations can self pollinate just fine. this is not a different species, just a different expression of the same genes. i would attribute it to epigenetics but that's just a stab in the dark.

People in this thread have brought up the subfamily Epidendroideae which is a perfect example for how our understanding of these processes is shifting. ever heard of a BLC cross? or the Encyclia as a species complex? Ask Dr. Ruben Sauleda about it. these are further examples of how epidendroids are not totally separate from their ancient swarms. And it illustrates beautifully that the way we as a whole understand species needs to be updated.

i think the essence of epiphytes proposal is that the swarm that yielded the ghost orchid in a manner of speaking still exists, and other genes in the swarm can benefit the genetic material contained by lindenii. the ghost orchid can be propagated and grown outside of its habitat, and at the end of the day that is all that needs to happen to ensure it will be around long after we are gone, and long after the everglades are history. their current habitat is vast, far larger than all of the settled area in the entirety of south florida, and because of this i would say there is honestly no chance it has been extirpated, and therefore in fact there must be plants that have not been included in any census, but no one has noted that the habitat has an expiration date.

South Florida Adapting Infrastructure to Rising Sea Levels | Popular Science

the reason why florida will sink has nothing to do with the coastline and everything to do with the young porous limestone on which florida exists. no amount of coastal damming will help. the water will come up from underneath, then the everglades will be gone, and the wild tolumnia, oncidium, brassia, dendrophylax, harrisella, cyrtopodium, and encyclia will have nothing to adapt to except briny water.

This is why 'conservation' when applied to south florida is short sighted. I'm not trying to say it is bad, just insufficient in 100 years. On the other hand maybe some orchids from the million orchid project are going to be the grand parents for the habitat that comes next in central Florida, or that there will be people who will save them from the sea. i would bet on that if i were a better.

And honestly i have been thinking about this type of hybridization for a while now and the two things that would preserve the flower's unique shape are a cross with Dendrophylax sallei, or a backcross of a gripps ghost with lindenii then selecting for flower shape or more importantly temperature tolerance. This will yield a hybrid that is well over 80% lindenii since these three species already have a statistically significant similarity in their genes, meaning they are already close relatives and could be used to create a species complex for natural selection to sort out in a new habitat AFTER the ghost orchid's habitat has vanished. that is a good idea for 60 years from now, but not the short term.

As a side note, I am just an amateur and have to admit I have come up with some creative theories involving the dispersal of these wonderful angraecoids to the carribean having to do with birds, since they seem a more probable method of dispersal than the current theory of a powerful storm carrying it across the atlantic. I guess both are possible, but think about a bird's talon, the grooves and rough skin are tucked in for a flight of hundreds of miles, then it rests on a branch...in a swamp. Now that really makes sense to me.

[Subrosa]

I am proud to be bigoted against the introduction of non native species and any hybrids being introduced into wild ecosystems. Thanks for the compliment! I'll have to owe you one for now.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

I am proud to be bigoted against the introduction of non native species and any hybrids being introduced into wild ecosystems. Thanks for the compliment! I'll have to owe you one for now.

well as payback, please don't come to IL and implement your solution against my non-native hummingbird. I am sure it goes through a couple of wild ecosystems to get to my garden.

[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.

[orchidsarefun]

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.

Hummingbirds breed somewhere ? At the moment its only the ruby-throated hummingbird - thats been documented in IL.
Illinois Hummingbirds -
Other examples , some protected some unregulated.
Ferrets - Established Species of Non-native Mammals in California - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

The problem with making general statements is that they are easily discounted.


A simple search reveals more data
Species by State/Province