a horribly ambitious and terribly long project

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by ovanoshio

I also happen to think it is very important to save at least some version of this plant for the future.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

If we care about the continued existence of monopodial orchids...shouldn't we be striving to create fitter ones?

Ovanoshio and Carlos,
Pardon the pragmatism but in all the discussion I don't think anyone has asked the simple question,
Why?

What is so important about Dendrophylax lindenii or indeed monopodial orchids, as Carlos expanded the topic to include, that they need to be preserved? If they are doomed to extinction in their natural habitat, what is so important about these orchids that they cannot be allowed to go extinct?

[isurus79]

And instead of opining about hypothetical situations that don't exist, wouldn't it just be more worthwhile to just cross breed some orchids and tell us about it? Seems like your time would be better suited to pollinating Dend lindenii (assuming you already know how to grow this one) with pollinia of other species rather than ponder multi million dollar genetic studies and scenarios where snakes are crushing orchids out of existence (is there a facepalm icon??).

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by isurus79

And instead of opining about hypothetical situations that don't exist, wouldn't it just be more worthwhile to just cross breed some orchids and tell us about it? Seems like your time would be better suited to pollinating Dend lindenii (assuming you already know how to grow this one) with pollinia of other species rather than ponder multi million dollar genetic studies and scenarios where snakes are crushing orchids out of existence (is there a facepalm icon??).

100% agree. Given the only registered hybrid for lindenii that I can find is a cross with funalis, speculating about the potential of using lindenii in complex intergenerics is a bit premature.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Ovanoshio and Carlos,
Pardon the pragmatism but in all the discussion I don't think anyone has asked the simple question,
Why?

What is so important about Dendrophylax lindenii or indeed monopodial orchids, as Carlos expanded the topic to include, that they need to be preserved? If they are doomed to extinction in their natural habitat, what is so important about these orchids that they cannot be allowed to go extinct?

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

Originally Posted by Jayfar

I think I might disagree with your basic premise, but I thoroughly enjoyed the essay. Doesn't the 'Prime Directive,' or a corollary, come into play here?

Glad you enjoyed the essay!

The prime directive...hmmmm. No, we are definitely supposed to interfere. Well...facilitate free trade. Don't we want as many orchids growing on as many trees as possible? This means crossing as many epiphytic species as possible and allowing nature to determine which crosses are the fittest.

Lots of the concepts in this blog entry of mine are quite relevant...Xero's Rule.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Don't we want as many orchids growing on as many trees as possible? This means crossing as many epiphytic species as possible and allowing nature to determine which crosses are the fittest.

(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.

[gravotrope]

I agree with Carlos in principle, but Orchidwhisperer is right about causing potential damage to native populations. That is not the goal, in fact it is the NON GOAL...meaning avoiding that happening is very important.

It is a little bit Dr. Moreau-ish to try such a huge uncontained project, but it's hard not to appreciate the scope of creating resilience in the face of accelerated change. A Renanthera may have evolved some completely different genes that could somehow 'help,' but that is not the point I am trying to make.

Human activity is directly responsible for the complete future destruction of its habitat. Even if that statement isn't entirely correct, there is still meaning there. This is about forethought, and to a lesser extent speculative fiction. It's also about proving that something can be done despite all the untold changes we have triggered.

It requires the ability to see a fragile changing ecology and say..."well IF this is completely destroyed, maybe there's something we can do now to raise awareness and ensure some piece of it remains."

If everything that was happening (stronger storms, rising seas, different air quality) occurred on a more geologic time scale, then ALL of Florida's native plants and animals could theoretically adapt to a cooler more mangrove-like salt environment to the north, and I wouldn't feel a need to intervene. In Cuba, this plant actually stands a chance at changing along with the environment, because the geography isn't entirely flat limestone like tropical and subtropical Florida.

Due to the rotation of the earth (actually more so the gravitational pulls of the sun and moon) and the fluid nature of water...sea level rise will affect equatorial regions and near equatorial regions greater than in the more temperate zones (sorry Vanuatu.) This means Miami HAS to look at 2060 or before in order to build a system where it doesn't sink beneath the sea (this might not be possible). Miami Beach floods at lunar high tides, so a rise of the sea that equals the distance most of these plants live at in swamps (being only 5-30ft above a ground level which starts at 5ft above or even a few feet below sea level) would devastate their wild native population and habitat. (I use Miami as an example because it is a couple feet above sea level, and relative to the swamps where lindenii lives.)

If they are doomed to extinction, I am saying it is because of human influence. So doing something about it makes sense to me. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone else...

I thought the python issue, though imaginative, would grab a lot of people's attention whether they really had an impact on the actual physical plants or not, and it did. I doubt many people have considered a Burmese python's effect on any aspect of native flora, but I used it as a flashy gimmick to get people thinking about how unwitting this ecological shift is. If it rubs you the wrong way, forget about it, there are still points to be made here.

It isn't just that their habitat is threatened and changing, it is that they are so highly specialized and slow growing that their adaptability is stunted. I believe bringing back their vitality and boosting their adaptability is possible through creating a breeding program that approximates a common ancestor of Dendrophylax Campylocentrum and Jumellea. (The true ancestral origin probably hasn't existed for millions of years, or was actually so successful it is still alive somewhere in Jumellea[a complete guess based on habitat, appearance, and moth pollination])

BUT I am relatively new to monopodial orchids, having bought my first one (a neofinetia) just over a year ago, then 10 more from different genera after I moved to South Florida. I have been able to grow a few pods...(a phaius, an ascofinetia, and oncidium cross) but never did anything to cultivate the seeds. I may have to enlist help from the resources I have established going to orchid shows here in FL, and in enlisting help I know I need practice explaining this idea to people. So this discussion is the first part, and it still seems worthwhile providing these plants remain only in cultivation.

[Orchid Whisperer]

ovanoshio, so essentially, you have no experience to do any of the things you have discussed over the last couple of weeks?? You have owned one monopodial orchid for about a year, that's it?

This thread has amounted to nothing more than a lot of electronic arm-waiving and digital jaw-flapping.

Do some real good if you really care about such things. Participate in REAL conservation activities, organized by experienced people, or support them financially.

I'm done here. Complete waste of time.

[gravotrope]

Actually I forgot to include my first two Phals and Doritis, so it's been almost five years.

And I said I bought 10 more monopodial orchids from different genera after moving here... I've got 4 seedlings and 6 mature plants. For some reason I think of Phals differently so I didn't include them, of which I have 4 mature ones. If you're going to respond to a post you should probably read it. I have about 60 orchids total now, and I keep all of them outside unless they're in bloom.

Since I was changing my culture from oncidiums and phals on the windowsill in Massachusetts to outdoor culture in south Florida I figured I would be learning a lot, and I have. Also, I intend to learn a lot more, I remember almost everything that I read, see, and hear, but I'm not a nursery...

I appreciate a lot of what you said, but less so how you've said it, so thank you for your contributions. And (not that the amount of time this has been a discussion is important at all) it's only been 8 days, not a couple of weeks. This isn't a job interview at an orchid propagation facility....it's a forum for people of all sorts of experience levels to share ideas, photos, musings, and advice

[AnonYMouse]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

ovanoshio, so essentially, you have no experience to do any of the things you have discussed over the last couple of weeks?? You have owned one monopodial orchid for about a year, that's it?

This thread has amounted to nothing more than a lot of electronic arm-waiving and digital jaw-flapping.

Do some real good if you really care about such things. Participate in REAL conservation activities, organized by experienced people, or support them financially.

I'm done here. Complete waste of time.

I think this was a genuine attempt at an academic discussion, not a complete waste of time.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by AnonYMouse

I think this was a genuine attempt at an academic discussion, not a complete waste of time.

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.