The end of the line.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

P

PHRAG

Guest
gonewild said:
First generation specie or hybrid orchids?

But you like bonsai. In the "tree world" bonsai are more like hybrid orchids than species. They are created by humans. You like them for their beauty and what the represent not for the specie of plant they are. Si or No?

Species.

I wasn't trying to start the same argument I seem to start every time I start a thread on this board. I realize other people may not agree with me, but I prefer species orchids over hybrids, and "unfooledaroundwith" species at that. The less that the species have been changed through breeding for darker color, larger flowers, and bigger spikes then the better I think they are. It's just a preference, not a judgement of anyone for liking something different.

Part of me actually worries that when I do get the chance to see an orchid species that I love growing in the wild, that will be it. I will stay there and not come home.

So with that in mind, my "dream greenhouse" is filled with plants that are the first generation offspring of wild plants. I don't want wild collected plants if they are growing happily where they are without danger of being destroyed. I just want one of their chids : ) And if that means all of my besseae are not awardable, and have color breaks on the petals, that's fine with me. They aren't defects to me, it's nature, and she is beautiful without our help. Again, my opinion.

I don't feel comfortable discussing Bonsai on a deep level. I am way too new at it to discuss it with any idea of what I am saying. But I will say this. The first thing all the books tell you is don't replicate nature's "mistakes" in your trees. And to me, those "mistakes" are what make trees so great. So I fully intend to ignore that advice for better, or more probably in most people's eyes, worse. : )
 

slippertalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
962
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Wa.
PHRAG said:
I can honestly say I never saw this discussion going that route. Though, it doesn't surprise me. : )

Anyone want to discuss what the orchids will look like a million years from now when the effects of the asteroid that hit us wear off?

Actually that's an interesting point. There is evidence that orchids began at some rudimentary level about 100 million years ago. Of course the killer asteroid that happened 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs and the vast majority of life on this plant. The fact that some fragment of the orchid population survived and then flourished into many forms probably gives us some sense of the reslience of these plants.

Mass extinctions have been a part of Earth's story from the beginning. Even more recent are the extinctions of the mammoths, saber tooth tigers, and many other species in the paleolithic period. Even more recent than that are cases of animals like the passenger pigeon that filled the skies of the eastern U.S. with several million birds. They were slaughtered by hunters just for the sport, and the last one is stuffed in the Smithsonian.

In the grand scheme of time we are barely a blink, and something new will evolve long after we are gone.

That being said, CITES is ridiculous, habitat destruction will not only obliterate species (not just orchids, but many flora and fauna), but it will continue to contribute to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming will eventually kill a lot more plants than any collectors. It is already killing forests in the north due to warmer temperatures and insect predatation.

What will an orchid look like in 1 million years? Probably much like they do today with adaptations to their environments and pollinators.
 

gonewild

Grower
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
5,139
Reaction score
7
Location
Puerto Maldonado, Peru
PHRAG said:
Species.

I wasn't trying to start the same argument I seem to start every time I start a thread on this board. I realize other people may not agree with me, but I prefer species orchids over hybrids, and "unfooledaroundwith" species at that. The less that the species have been changed through breeding for darker color, larger flowers, and bigger spikes then the better I think they are. It's just a preference, not a judgement of anyone for liking something different.

Good thing you weren't trying to start an argument, because you did not. I'm not arguing or challenging your opinion. I asked the question to better understand your feelings about your position on line breeding, species and hybrids. You asked for a discussion and you got it. :)

I actually agree with your opinion about a collection of "unfooledaroundwith" species being a worthy goal and desire. I personally appreciate pure species more than I do manipulated clones.

Part of me actually worries that when I do get the chance to see an orchid species that I love growing in the wild, that will be it. I will stay there and not come home.

That could happen so easily. So what are you waiting for? Don't miss it.

So with that in mind, my "dream greenhouse" is filled with plants that are the first generation offspring of wild plants. I don't want wild collected plants if they are growing happily where they are without danger of being destroyed.

You could easily fill your dream greenhouse with wild plants that are not growing happily where they are. The world accepts and now demands animals be rescued and provided sanctuary. One day perhaps humanity will not draw a line that excludes plants from the group of life with rights.

In Yellowstone National Park it is not legal to approach wildlife closer than 25yards. Yet it is legal to hook and capture and release a fish. Why is a fish not wildlife? A line exists that gives rights of life to organisms, but the organisms must meet a criteria to qualify? Who gets to be the judge? Orchids being among the most highly evolved plants should be given rights of life and be rescued and placed in sanctuaries that will care for them.
Tell that to your congressman.

I just want one of their chids : ) And if that means all of my besseae are not awardable, and have color breaks on the petals, that's fine with me. They aren't defects to me, it's nature, and she is beautiful without our help. Again, my opinion.

I respect and agree with your opinion. The best way to achieve a collection like this would be to obtain nursery grown plants grown from wild collected seed. One day your color break bessaeas will be a fine genetic collection to begin creating hybrids with varigated flowers. :evil:

I don't feel comfortable discussing Bonsai on a deep level. I am way too new at it to discuss it with any idea of what I am saying. But I will say this. The first thing all the books tell you is don't replicate nature's "mistakes" in your trees. And to me, those "mistakes" are what make trees so great. So I fully intend to ignore that advice for better, or more probably in most people's eyes, worse. : )

I used the bonsai question to find your opinion about hybrids and how you see them verses natural species. Bonsai is an art form based on a living object (and spirituality). Orchid hybrids are art forms based on living objects( and commercialism). Both have their followers. Both have their beauty.

Your answer about bonsai clearly shows you appreciate nature in it's purest and basic form. Your answer about color breaks in an orchid flower shows the same feeling. I assume you have in the past not felt highly of hybrids and line bred species. You felt they were not correct because they were changing nature, an art form. When you become a student of bonsai and try to convince a teacher that a "cross over" limb is OK, because it is natural, your role will be reversed. Your teacher will think you are messing up a good plant just as an orchid specie purest thinks line breeding messes up a specie.
A true conscious orchid hybridizer breeds to improve balance and beauty for the beholder. A bonsai master shapes for the same reasons.

It may seem we have strayed off subject of this thread with this discussion, but not so. Now we know how a person can feel so strongly about species that they might shun hybrids. We also know that a person can change their opinion about hybrids, line breeding, shows, awards and the mix in general.
We know there is no right and wrong way, their are only opinions.

So now back to the original question... can we line breed a specie and reintroduce it into nature to resurrect an extinct specie? Should we?
 

Heather

Administrator
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
10,483
Reaction score
20
Location
Sacramento, CA. Outside w/ Southeast Exposure

Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
12,765
Reaction score
7
Location
Leiper's Fork, TN
Way to go Heather.

I know the AOS also has a conservation program. It may be under the umbrella of one of the sites you listed.
 
M

Mahon

Guest
slippertalker said:
That being said, CITES is ridiculous, habitat destruction will not only obliterate species (not just orchids, but many flora and fauna), but it will continue to contribute to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming will eventually kill a lot more plants than any collectors. It is already killing forests in the north due to warmer temperatures and insect predatation.

Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"... instead, it is the sun getting hotter than it was before. The Ozone layer has the triatomic oxygen molecules (O3) that shield us from the sun's radiation. The pollution that goes into the atmosphere will eventually cycle, as the earth is in a perfect cycle and in order.

-Pat
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
2
Location
Richmond, VA
Mahon said:
Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"... instead, it is the sun getting hotter than it was before.

Wow. Back that one up, please.

Earth has natural climactic cycles... There's no debate about that. However, recent (400,000 years as illustrated by the Vostok ice core) climate cycles have proceeded at relatively uniform rates. And that's what it all comes down to. Rate of change. Combine the Vostock CO2 vs. Temp graph with the Keeling curve(atmospheric CO2 measurements since the 1950s), and you'll see that modern CO2 levels are the highest they've been in measurable history. Something in the neighborhood of 380ppm now as opposed to a max of 290ppm then. Before the industrial revolution of the 1850s, the CO2 concentration was 280ppm. That's a difference of 100pm. It took us 150 years to do that. In the Vostok core, it took 140,000 years to make a 100ppm jump (180ppm to 280ppm).

Now it's time to add something to the mix. In the Vostok core, CO2 concentration is in direct correlation with with temperature. That is, CO2 increase is quickly followed by a temperature increase. Once again, when you combine the Vostok core with the Keeling curve and look at global average temps, you see they are exactly in line with CO2 levels. What does that mean for us? Well, the rate of temperature increase, as illustrated earlier, is much faster than anything in recent history. Then, species had time to adapt/move/do what it takes to survive. These days, the changes occur too quickly for most species to adapt. Take a look at our biodiversity hotspots: coral reefs are being bleached and the tropical cloud forests are dessicating(they are watered by mist that is disappearing).

Greenland is melting. A huge river of freshwater flows into the North Atlantic. As more of the ice cap melts, greater is the chance of the thermohaline cycle collapsing due to the indundation of freshwater. The thermohaline cycle is what keeps northern Europe and northeastern North America relatively warm. Thermohaline cycle collapse is often labeled as the cause of the last(and some previous? I don't know) ice age.

Even if anthropocentric climate change is proven to be a bunch of BS(which I highly doubt), the measures required to halt or slow it are no-regret solutions. We would have cleaner air, cleaner water, and less of a dependence on fossil fuels. They are things we should be doing anyway to preserve our home!

You have absolutely, positively, NO IDEA what you are talking about. It's mindblowing.
 
M

Mahon

Guest
kentuckiense said:
You have absolutely, positively, NO IDEA what you are talking about. It's mindblowing.

That is quite a solid statement you have made there. I am glad I have AMAZED and entertained you. If you feel the need, you can AMAZE yourself by reading more about it...

First of all, I am not up for a debate on this, I was relaying some of the newer research upon the sun. I didn't know I was dealing with an expert. Please tell us all about global warming; perhaps I should shut up and listen... and please explain why you disincluded the fact that the sun is getting hotter? And please explain where I don't know what I am talking about... because I don't know where it is... help!

-PM
 

Jon in SW Ohio

Reefer, the legal kind
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
998
Reaction score
1
Location
Springboro, Ohio
Mahon, you obviously didn't read the whole work of Dr. Solanki, and Dr. Bill Burrows and Dr. Viner's and Dr. Jones' perspectives and just skimmed the first couple paragraphs...

Jon
________
1957 Ford
 
Last edited:
M

Mahon

Guest
Jon,

Where can I find their entire publication? I can only find news articles about their publication, which doesn't have details of the research...

-PM
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
2
Location
Richmond, VA
Mahon said:
That is quite a solid statement you have made there. I am glad I have AMAZED and entertained you. If you feel the need, you can AMAZE yourself by reading more about it...
I have. Perhaps you should read a bit more about it yourself:

"Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

You're citing an "inconclusive" study from 2003. Why have we not heard more about it lately? You'd think there would be research going on if it was such a pressing issue.


Mahon said:
First of all, I am not up for a debate on this, I was relaying some of the newer research upon the sun.
2003 is newer?

Mahon said:
I didn't know I was dealing with an expert. Please tell us all about global warming; perhaps I should shut up and listen... and please explain why you disincluded the fact that the sun is getting hotter?
I never said that the sun wasn't getting hotter. However, it is almost universally accepted that CO2 concentration is the leading agent. In your post, you completely discounted CO2 as a cause of global climate change. Did you completely ignore what I wrote about the Vostok ice core? CO2 increase followed by temperature increase.

Mahon said:
And please explain where I don't know what I am talking about... because I don't know where it is... help!
Sure thing! This is where:

Mahon said:
Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"

Basically, you ignored my entire argument and and just threw around the term "newer research."
 
M

Mahon

Guest
Awesome... you have thoroughly convinced me that I must be the dumbest person around. Sorry to have interefered with your superior intellect... as a suggestion, maybe you should help out with the global warming research?

-Pat
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
2
Location
Richmond, VA
Mahon said:
Awesome... you have thoroughly convinced me that I must be the dumbest person around. Sorry to have interefered with your superior intellect... as a suggestion, maybe you should help out with the global warming research?

-Pat

So I take that as Mahon-speak for "I fold."

Don't get pissed off when someone calls you out for making flippant and wildly inaccurate statements.



Anyone up for a trip to Peru?
 

Jon in SW Ohio

Reefer, the legal kind
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
998
Reaction score
1
Location
Springboro, Ohio
I love these posts that start as one topic and go in a different direction every night. I can't wait to see what the conversation is when we hit page 20!

Jon
________
Tube 8
 
Last edited:

gonewild

Grower
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
5,139
Reaction score
7
Location
Puerto Maldonado, Peru
Heather said:
I'd like to discuss some of these organizations and what people know/think about them. I guess with all the discussion in this thread I wonder how successful any of them are...

This is a good topic to discuss. I personally do not know anything about these 3 organizations. I would like to know more. Not knowing anything about these organizations I went to each link you provided. Here are a few quick things I learned.


Sounds good and home grown. But they use a lot of their funds for funding research projects.

"Predicting the Vulnerability of Epiphytic Orchid Communities to Climate Change in the Peruvian Andes - Damien Catchpole, School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania ($3000)

Research is not bad but is it really conservation? Do you want your donation to go toward someones degree or directly toward saving orchids and habitat?

They also are buying land to create preserves. It is my direct experience and observation in Peru that local people take offense to foreign groups buying up land and saying it is a preserve. This is not a concept rural people appreciate or understand. At best it benefits a few local people and this causes jealousy. This actually causes local people to turn against the conservation goal.

Orchid Conservation International
http://www.orchidconservation.org/

The primary listed use of funds is for research grants. The Benefactors page is under construction, so how are we to know how they use the money?
They seem to be tied to the Royal Botanic Gardens, KEW.

And Orchid Conservation Coalition (and their 1% for orchid conservation program - our society is a member, is yours?)
http://www.orchidconservationcoalition.org/

The Orchid Conservation Coalition website focus seems to be on collecting a 1% donation to be used for funding study projects They state funds will be used for lobbying.
 

Heather

Administrator
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
10,483
Reaction score
20
Location
Sacramento, CA. Outside w/ Southeast Exposure
kentuckiense said:
I was sent this link today:

http://www.phytosophy.org/

Any opinions?

I think Steve T (who never did join up here, hmph! he promised!)
started Phytosophy with good intentions but it never really seemed to get off the ground. I used to pop over there occasionally but there were never any new posts. Unfortunately, as with Paphiopedia, I think he was a little late (Stephen Manza was a bit quicker on the uptake in getting the slippers covered). JMHO.

OCI is indeed based out of Kew.
I haven't really had much of a chance to delve into the other organizations myself...maybe later today...

Does anyone know anything about whether the habitat of P. mahonium has been destroyed yet? If not, I think we should start a board fundraising project to protect it. :)
 
Top