Recommended Posts

Shame though in'it :biggrin:

That my friend is a double edged sword. Because it really depends on if you are the one imposing the ideals or the one having the ideals being imposed upon you.

Just look at the headlines today. You will see Mrs. Clinton apologizing to Guatemala for her party's past leaders who thought it was for the common good to infect some people with syphilis and then study treatments. So, if you ask the people that were infected they would probably say it isn't a shame.

Dashman,no-one is trying to impose beliefs on others as far as im aware.We are all throwing our ideas and beliefs into the mix.Which is how it should be.Then everyone can decide for themselves whats what.

I wasn't trying to single anyone out. Just making the general observation that many governments nowadays use the guise of the common good or security to do all sorts of illegal and immoral things.

I am getting off the topic of extinction. I apologize for hijacking this thread.

It is a very serious matter indeed and not only for CPs. That is one of the reasons I began growing carnivorous plants. It is my little way of trying to insure survival of these amazing life forms.

Edited by dashman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh ok....that's what I meant Phil.....

DexFC

Good. Then you see that I think this is an argument over the reason why all the seeds do not make it to mature plants. I would propose that the main reason (by orders of magnitude) is due to both competition between seedlings and other vegetation and, to a lesser extent, that the seeds do not land in 'ideal' growing conditions. These plants grow in very competitive habitats. The counter argument might be that the seeds do not reach maturity because most are not viable i.e. given ideal conditions they would not germinate. I do not grow Nepenthes but I know enough about ecology and evolution to understand that this latter suggestion is very unlikely; most seeds will be viable if given appropriate conditions in a timely manner.

Let us say there are 100 seeds scattered over an area of 1m square. Most will not survive to maturity MOSTLY because of competition from the other seedlings and surrounding vegetation. Take 50 of these seeds away at the start and the chance of one reaching maturity is hardly any different than if 50 were not taken away.

The reduction in probability that any will reach maturity is hardly changed if the main reason for wild seeds not reaching maturity is competition. Assuming this is true, then all you are doing by taking half the seeds away is fractionally slowing evolution of the species in the wild (a tiny amount given the time scales). If the seeds were taken responsibly then the result, assuming e.g. 50% survival in cultivation, is 25 pampered plants in cultivation with all the DNA they carry related to that species safe from habitat destruction. If they are looked after well by caring conservationists then should the wild population disappear due to habitat destruction then there is a chance the cultivated plants can be used to re-introduce somewhere in the future. Get enough seed from enough plants into cultivation (i.e. NOT tissue culture) then you may have enough genetic variability to ensure their survival upon re-introduction. The argument for tissue culture is, as Phil mentioned, a very quick reduction in plant value resulting in less poaching.

However, taking 50% of the seeds does mean that the probability of seed falling in 'ideal' growing conditions without any help is halved and this is significant if this factor is significant. Countering this, the responsible collector could take more of the seeds and scatter/sow them nearby where the collector thinks they will have better growing conditions than where most would have been dispersed naturally (of course, this needs a full understanding of wild seed dispersal methods for this particular plant). (This also ensures that another seed collector cannot come along after and take even more seeds from the same ripe pod.)

But then you could say, 'Hey! What about all the other plant species that would have naturally competed and are now at a disadvantage!'. Well, that is another argument concerning biodiversity; but I would suggest that having the highest biodiversity ensures that we have an ecosystem with the best chance of adaption to change and, so, of supporting our tiny biosphere and life as we know it.

Does this make sense?

Edited by jimfoxy
Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of ecological models and formulae, there is generally a "bare minimum" number of offspring required in order for a species of plant or animal to persist into successive generations; and generally, for many Nepenthes, this is, thankfully, the case; but there are areas were only remnant populations or perhaps only single plants exist, as is the case of Nepenthes pitopangii, from Central Sulawesi -- where only a single male was recently discovered. Obviously, unless females are eventually discovered, or it eventually becomes initialized into tissue culture; or it readily hybridizes with neighboring species; it is effectively extinct . . .

Edited by loligo1964
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably nepenthes make so many seeds because if they didn't they wouldn't reproduce enough to keep the species going. It's as much about getting seeds to new suitable habitats as it is about competition in a local area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
as is the case of Nepenthes pitopangii, from Central Sulawesi -- where only a single male was recently discovered.

Personally, I think they have been rather premature describing a new species from one male plant. It may very well be a unique species, but when it is just one plant it could also just as easily be an extreeme mutation of something else. When more of them are discovered, then it can be called a new species - but from just one plant - premature (but not neccessarily wrong).

Link to post
Share on other sites

( A)while I do not consider collecting Nepenthes seed in general a problem..........

(B)There is only about a dozen plants left, only 3 of which at flowering size. Even collection of seed will deplete the only place on earth to see this species!

I strongly beleive, (A) eventually leads to (B) ......It's just a matter of time.......I've been trying to explain this in the other threads, but too many "Experts" that know everything.....And I will be honest, I'm guilty cause I'm a collector, but so are many many collectors...

DexFC

Actually it is the digging up of plants which has and does lead to this situation - NOT the collecting of seeds.

Unless you have evidence to support your view.

And at well over 500 posts in just 2 months, your becomming quite the "Expert" yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And at well over 500 posts in just 2 months, your becomming quite the "Expert" yourself.

Someday........I will be..........

DexFC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.