Date: Fri, 3 Jan 97 02:49:05 UT From: "Demetrio Lamzaki" <Dee_Lamzaki@msn.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg28$foo@default> Subject: Re: Non-Native Species
>>So true! It's such an easy thing to do that the numbers soon
>>overwhelm you. Philip's post was a real eye-opener. It's
>>incredible what just a few individual members of a species
>>can do when given the opportunity, maybe if we told them
>>their parent stock was not genetically diverse enough when
>>it was released into the wild we can convince them to stop
>>dominating the landscape! :-)
>Again, I believe it is erroneous to suggest that the reintroduction
>of plants to wild habitat will proceed with the "ease" of introduction
>of certain invading exotics. (snip) I also think it is not productive
>to argue in this way about the minimum level of genetic diversity
>needed for successful reintroduction.
Huh? The comment you're quoting is not an argument, but a
humorous statement as designated by the ":-)" at the end.
It was so illogical (negotiating with a plant species) I thought it
would easily be seen as such and there was no danger of
someone considering it a serious point to debate but you did!
(Now that turn of events is truly hilarious! :-)
I guess next you'll send me a long serious answer to the other
smiley question I raised regarding putting the Bay Area on the
CP location map for Sarracenia oreophila, I'm assuming your
position is yes, but keep the detail blurry to confuse the
poachers...:-)
I know you must be a little sore Michael because
your original comment "Fortunately, exotic introduction
"successes" like the starlings, cheat grass, purple loostrife,
salt cedar, and water hyacinth in the US. are rare." is what
started this whole thread to begin with, but don't
lose your sense of humor.
Regards,
Demetrios
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST