Jan, I think it is important for everyone to realize the RANGE of
variability among both amateurs and professionals. The fact that
a group of the best amateurs has done better work than the work of
the worst professionals should be viewed as an overlap in the
distribution of this range. Conflict exists even among professionals
from different ends of this range. Same must be true among
growers. Differences will always exist, and we should work on ways to
communicate thoughtfully to resolve differences on a case-by-case
basis. This is not cooperation, but communication. I think cooperation
requires we all be working toward the same, defined goal. What is the
unified goal of scientists and growers? I have not identified one.
> As to genetic diversity, the process of evolution (mutation rate,
> selective pressure) does not stop in cultivation. Population size
> does mainly influence outbreeding taxa. But we have seen that
> several cps reproduce asexually predominantly (many members of
> _Drosera_ subgen. Bryastrum) or even exclusively (e.g. _Utricularia
> bremii_ which has so far never been observed to form fruits). So
> these should not suffer under cultivation. Furthermore, genetic
> diversity is frequently even increased in cultivation by mutagenesis
Mutations maintained in cultivation will undergo selection for
survival in cultivation. This may not be adaptive for survival in
the wild! It is an important consideration if conservation (for the
purpose of reintroduction to the wild) is your intent.
> I think it is not up to scientists to supply ammunition for people
> interested in conservation to shoot at people who aren't. It is the
It's up to scientists to shoot down bad science and erroneous assumptions
based on science.
> task of mankind to recognize that natural diversity is in itself a
> value worth of conservation, irrespective of possible future
> applications (i.e. commercial value) to the benefit of mankind (or at
> least the selling part of which). This is apparently a very difficult
> lesson, and human cognition may not be ready to learn it in time.
I certainly agree.
> However, I see no mission for science here if common sense is not
> sufficient. Those who just go and strip sites of rare or even *all*
Anyone interested in doing conservation should apply some of that interest
to understanding of principles of conservation. The role of genetics in
conservation is very important, and not simple. Common sense is not
sufficient to deduce it. A little learning is required. I'd recommend
those interested in genetic diversity to please skim over a basic
biology text if they've not done so in a long time. This will cover basic
terminology and concepts which I think are necessary before moving on
to discussing the role of genetic diversity in conservation.
Michael Chamberland