Re: "Extinct" Habitat

Paul Temple 12-Apr-1996 1458 (temple_p@fangio.enet.dec.com)
Fri, 12 Apr 96 16:00:48 MET DST

+---------------------------+ TM From: Paul Temple
| | | | | | | | Dept: Digital
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l | Func: Net Comms
| | | | | | | | DTN: 7781-1582
+---------------------------+ Easynet: fangio::temple_p
Internet: temple_p@gmt.dec.com
Loc/MS: GMT

At risk of inviting contradiction (followed by embarassment) but in the
interests of discovering the truth....

No doubt an expert (e.g. Jan) will be better able to reference the
plant (I can't remember it) but I think that I can give an example of an
extinct habitat resulting in plant loss.

Isn't it true that one species of Utric was lost to cultivation
following the disappearance of it's sole habitat. It grew on a volcano
which regrettably did what comes naturally to volcanoes - Bang! Surely
this is habitat extinction? The same would be true if a Pacific island
were drowned following sea level rising. I've never seen the phrase
"habitat extinction" but it seems a fair one to use under appropriate
circumstances. Extinction seems more appropriate than "destruction"
where the loss is natural (i.e. not caused by humankind).

Regards

Paul

Regards

Paul
This is not a joke (blue leved Pings - harumph!) - I'm sure I remember reading
something on this in an early CPN or equivalent CP journal.