Re: your mail
Michael (IFMJC@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU)
Thu, 30 Sep 1993 20:30:58 -0700 (MST)
On Thu, 30 Sep 93 08:33:25 -0700 Bob Beer said:
>
>I got a single seedling of S. oreophila (not collected) several years
>ago, and as a result of division from that plant, about 6 more people are
^^^^^^^^
>growing it in the area, including the person I got it from in the first
>place (so he now has several clones).
>
>Now if an area were to be "developed" (blatant euphemism if you ask me)
>and all the plants were destined to oblivion, then any plants collected
>from the area are last reservors of the gene pool, and should be
^^^^^^^^^
>collected. (Isn't this the case with S. flava atropurpurea?)
>
Ah, but the big problem with division as a conservation measure is that
you loose the gene pool. As Barry pointed out earlier, plants grown in
cultivation will be artificially "selected" for genes that allow the species
to live in cultivation. So even propagating plants by seed in cultivation
can not protect the gene pool (unless the plants are cultivated "outdoors" in
a habitat similar to the one they came from), and a good sample size is needed.
Actually, this brings to mind the interesting note someone made recently
about VFT established in (oh, what state was it???). Anyway, there is a
certain hope there (which I can't recall ever having heard addressed) that
endangered spp. COULD be introduced to areas well OUTSIDE their original
range, and perhaps thrive there, if lucky. I guess the Ginkgo is a good
example. The one danger is that endangered sp. might do TOO well and
become a weed. It would then be a negative force in its new habitat.
Imagine VFTs becomming a weed in local bogs... Have not a bunch of CP
been introduced and gone wild in the Mendocino area of California?
-Michael