amorpho titanium pollen !!!)

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.21 at 16:04:05(6795) To Ron, from Amorph- and cultivated plant taxonomy -land I think you're mixing two "realities". I do see that you recognise them, being "nature" and its own laws of evolution of biodiversity and "man" (or should that read "women".....?), with its own influence on biodiversity, leading to a parallell diversity in domesticated entities (e.g. plant cultivars, domesticated cats and dogs, cows, and what have you). I think we should not condemn what we're doing ourselves to improve our society (think of agricultural crops being vastly artificially improved to fill our needs) because we obscure the beauty of wild things. We have a pre-set goal in manipulating plants and animals and we do it and succeed, resulting in a kind of "culto-diversity" with which we are mostly very pleased. Nature has no intentional goal and thus "produces" another kind of diversity, which we may like, or maybe even dislike. I don't think you should take "nature" itself as the norm and adapt our domestication and breeding to THAT norm. WE are the norm, whether some of us like or dislike that anthropocentrism. It's reality, and that's what it is. Should we revert to collecting our food ONLY from what nature has to offer in its present form? I guess we'd have a REAL social problem coming up then. Suggested reading (and self-promotion....): Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & W.A. Brandenburg. 1995. Culton vs. Taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175. Have phun. +More Cultbert ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 1:22 Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:50 PM > Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > > > | > | Yes, imagine a paeonifolius "super-sized": or on a taller stem like that > of > | gigas! Howbout novel colorpatterns from breeding with albispathus? > | C'mon Wilbert! Its done with Anthurium and Spathiphyllum! > | Bonaventure W. Magrys > | Cliffwood Beach, NJ > > Bonaventure! > > Your mention of Spathiphyllum has brought me into this. I have Wilbert's & > friends' wonderful monograph on Amorphophallus, Even though to me they are > hellish in contrast to heavenly Peace Lilies please can I write my thoughts? > > Many generations of haphazard & usually undocumented hybridisation of > Spathiphyllum has produced chaos. Spectacular "artificial" cultivars now > reign where only elegantly adapted natural species existed before. Species > evolved over the mists of time to suit their ecological niches, exactly. > Cultivars for Man's "ornament" unrelated to natural evolution & sometimes > degrading of Natural fitness. Most could not survive true competition in > the wild. > > Is it to be the same history with everything when Man's curiosity leads him > to try to "improve" upon Nature. If so, then a plea to keep wild species > integrity in cultivation. Another plea objectively to document heritages & > pedigrees of all "hybrids" most carefully before allocating meaningless > "names". There is hardly a group of "domesticated" animals or plants which > Man has not tried to improve upon to the detriment & often loss of the > "wild" species. But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", > arguably the "King" of Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the > arbitrary & mostly undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely > specialised creatures has produced the most extreme degradation of Nature's > nobility & adapted biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism. > > There are major principles here for all those who breed wild species. Why > does one hybridise? Surely, if species have been most carefully brought > into the custody of domestic cultivation from the wild there is an > inalienable responsibilityfor Homo sapiens to honour not to trivialise > Nature? > > I have tried to add humour to discussions even on plants which I can say > euphemistically are not my favourites. Sorry to be serious. I do not mean > to be a party pooper but there is a major ethic here. > > Ron Iles > > | > | GeoffAroid@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/20/2001 02:44:08 AM > | > | Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org > | > | Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org > | > | > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > | cc: > | > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > | > | > | > | In a message dated 19/6/01 11:10:48 pm, magrysbo@shu.edu writes: > | > | << Brian, You're making hybrids? Great. >> > | > | I have visions of an Amorph with the vigour, hardiness and ability to > | divide > | of konjac and the size and dramatic structure of titanum; the mind > | boggles......I think Wilbert has just fainted at the thought...... > | > | Geoffrey Kibby > | London > | > | > | > | > >

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.06.21 at 20:12:08(6808) Dear Lord P, This further rare discussion on phallods having changed direction...the fundamental principles arising seem most interesting. However, I & perhaps others have too limited understanding of the status quo and that vulnerable state needs remedy. I could easily have got out of my depth treading on unsafely floating hybrid phallods. And I sense already that your view of anthropocentrism from the afforested mountain parishes and glasshouse-ed plains of the Nederlands is out of line with my religious environmental fundamentalist views here. So, where do I get a print of your 1995 paper with Dr. Brandenberg please? This matter seems of such huge importance, that it is salutory that it should have arisen from a discussion on the values & aesthetics of your pre-eminent genus. It could make great IAS reading? May all your Amorphods remain pure even if they are inbred miscagenations. My respects, Lord P Ron +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) | To Ron, from Amorph- and cultivated plant taxonomy -land | | I think you're mixing two "realities". I do see that you recognise them, | being "nature" and its own laws of evolution of biodiversity and "man" (or | should that read "women".....?), with its own influence on biodiversity, | leading to a parallell diversity in domesticated entities (e.g. plant | cultivars, domesticated cats and dogs, cows, and what have you). I think we | should not condemn what we're doing ourselves to improve our society (think | of agricultural crops being vastly artificially improved to fill our needs) | because we obscure the beauty of wild things. We have a pre-set goal in | manipulating plants and animals and we do it and succeed, resulting in a | kind of "culto-diversity" with which we are mostly very pleased. Nature has | no intentional goal and thus "produces" another kind of diversity, which we | may like, or maybe even dislike. I don't think you should take "nature" | itself as the norm and adapt our domestication and breeding to THAT norm. WE | are the norm, whether some of us like or dislike that anthropocentrism. It's | reality, and that's what it is. | | Should we revert to collecting our food ONLY from what nature has to offer | in its present form? I guess we'd have a REAL social problem coming up then. | | Suggested reading (and self-promotion....): Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & W.A. | Brandenburg. 1995. Culton vs. Taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant | systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175. | | Have phun. | | Cultbert | | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: Ron Iles | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L | Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 1:22 | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | | | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: | > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" | > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:50 PM | > Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | > | > | > | | > | Yes, imagine a paeonifolius "super-sized": or on a taller stem like that | > of | > | gigas! Howbout novel colorpatterns from breeding with albispathus? | > | C'mon Wilbert! Its done with Anthurium and Spathiphyllum! | > | Bonaventure W. Magrys | > | Cliffwood Beach, NJ | > | > Bonaventure! | > | > Your mention of Spathiphyllum has brought me into this. I have Wilbert's | & | > friends' wonderful monograph on Amorphophallus, Even though to me they | are | > hellish in contrast to heavenly Peace Lilies please can I write my | thoughts? | > | > Many generations of haphazard & usually undocumented hybridisation of | > Spathiphyllum has produced chaos. Spectacular "artificial" cultivars now | > reign where only elegantly adapted natural species existed before. | Species | > evolved over the mists of time to suit their ecological niches, exactly. | > Cultivars for Man's "ornament" unrelated to natural evolution & sometimes | > degrading of Natural fitness. Most could not survive true competition in | > the wild. | > | > Is it to be the same history with everything when Man's curiosity leads | him | > to try to "improve" upon Nature. If so, then a plea to keep wild species | > integrity in cultivation. Another plea objectively to document heritages | & | > pedigrees of all "hybrids" most carefully before allocating meaningless | > "names". There is hardly a group of "domesticated" animals or plants | which | > Man has not tried to improve upon to the detriment & often loss of the | > "wild" species. But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", | > arguably the "King" of Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, the | > arbitrary & mostly undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely | > specialised creatures has produced the most extreme degradation of | Nature's | > nobility & adapted biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism. | > | > There are major principles here for all those who breed wild species. Why | > does one hybridise? Surely, if species have been most carefully brought | > into the custody of domestic cultivation from the wild there is an | > inalienable responsibilityfor Homo sapiens to honour not to trivialise | > Nature? | > | > I have tried to add humour to discussions even on plants which I can say | > euphemistically are not my favourites. Sorry to be serious. I do not | mean | > to be a party pooper but there is a major ethic here. | > | > Ron Iles | > | > | | > | GeoffAroid@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/20/2001 02:44:08 AM | > | | > | Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org | > | | > | Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org | > | | > | | > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L | > | cc: | > | | > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! | > | | > | | > | | > | In a message dated 19/6/01 11:10:48 pm, magrysbo@shu.edu writes: | > | | > | << Brian, You're making hybrids? Great. >> | > | | > | I have visions of an Amorph with the vigour, hardiness and ability to | > | divide | > | of konjac and the size and dramatic structure of titanum; the mind | > | boggles......I think Wilbert has just fainted at the thought...... | > | | > | Geoffrey Kibby | > | London | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | > | |

From: "Bob Bob" metopium at hotmail.com> on 2001.06.22 at 03:17:40(6816) Hybridizing? We're worried about the plant on our window or fish in out tanks being hybridized? +More Why not view it as evolving to live under the human condition? No Bengal or Siberian tigers in the wild? We'll certainly have white "Ziegfried and Roy" line bred- hybrids with us for a long time! Wild Dromedary camels...gone..a long time ago. Nice to have the domestic ones around. Bactrians... almost gone... couldn't find any in remote areas of the Gobi.... Went to the city where I found tons of domestic Bactrian camels. Put the domesticated Dromedary back in the wild? Why does Australia have a feral domesticated camel "problem"? What I don't want is Flounder genes in my camels to make them cold tolerant, or jellyfish genes so I can find them at night. So make your plant hybrids, and I'll buy them I'm sure. I gotta go back to cleaning up some dried pigeon poop (Histoplasmosis- I knew, eventually I'd use my degree in fungi! Thanks aroid-l !) Nyles _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.22 at 16:09:01(6838) Dear Lord Ronnie, The paper was published in Taxon (see my reference), a rather distinguished forum for taxonomy and its peculiar practitioners..... I know, I am one of them.... If you cannot get this Taxon volume in a nearby academic library (or are you in the USA....hee, hee), send me your private address privately and who knows, I might even find a reprint. Mind you, it is NOT easy reading...... +More Cheerio, Lord P. ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 22:12 Subject: Re: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) > Dear Lord P, > > This further rare discussion on phallods having changed direction...the > fundamental principles arising seem most interesting. However, I & perhaps > others have too limited understanding of the status quo and that vulnerable > state needs remedy. I could easily have got out of my depth treading on > unsafely floating hybrid phallods. And I sense already that your view of > anthropocentrism from the afforested mountain parishes and glasshouse-ed > plains of the Nederlands is out of line with my religious environmental > fundamentalist views here. So, where do I get a print of your 1995 paper > with Dr. Brandenberg please? This matter seems of such huge importance, > that it is salutory that it should have arisen from a discussion on the > values & aesthetics of your pre-eminent genus. It could make great IAS > reading? May all your Amorphods remain pure even if they are inbred > miscagenations. > > My respects, Lord P > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:04 PM > Subject: Why we breed what we breed (was: amorpho titanium pollen !!!) > > > | To Ron, from Amorph- and cultivated plant taxonomy -land > | > | I think you're mixing two "realities". I do see that you recognise them, > | being "nature" and its own laws of evolution of biodiversity and "man" (or > | should that read "women".....?), with its own influence on biodiversity, > | leading to a parallell diversity in domesticated entities (e.g. plant > | cultivars, domesticated cats and dogs, cows, and what have you). I think > we > | should not condemn what we're doing ourselves to improve our society > (think > | of agricultural crops being vastly artificially improved to fill our > needs) > | because we obscure the beauty of wild things. We have a pre-set goal in > | manipulating plants and animals and we do it and succeed, resulting in a > | kind of "culto-diversity" with which we are mostly very pleased. Nature > has > | no intentional goal and thus "produces" another kind of diversity, which > we > | may like, or maybe even dislike. I don't think you should take "nature" > | itself as the norm and adapt our domestication and breeding to THAT norm. > WE > | are the norm, whether some of us like or dislike that anthropocentrism. > It's > | reality, and that's what it is. > | > | Should we revert to collecting our food ONLY from what nature has to offer > | in its present form? I guess we'd have a REAL social problem coming up > then. > | > | Suggested reading (and self-promotion....): Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & W.A. > | Brandenburg. 1995. Culton vs. Taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant > | systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175. > | > | Have phun. > | > | Cultbert > | > | > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: Ron Iles > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > | Sent: donderdag 21 juni 2001 1:22 > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > | > | > | > > | > ----- Original Message ----- > | > From: > | > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" > | > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:50 PM > | > Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > | > > | > > | > | > | > | Yes, imagine a paeonifolius "super-sized": or on a taller stem like > that > | > of > | > | gigas! Howbout novel colorpatterns from breeding with albispathus? > | > | C'mon Wilbert! Its done with Anthurium and Spathiphyllum! > | > | Bonaventure W. Magrys > | > | Cliffwood Beach, NJ > | > > | > Bonaventure! > | > > | > Your mention of Spathiphyllum has brought me into this. I have > Wilbert's > | & > | > friends' wonderful monograph on Amorphophallus, Even though to me they > | are > | > hellish in contrast to heavenly Peace Lilies please can I write my > | thoughts? > | > > | > Many generations of haphazard & usually undocumented hybridisation of > | > Spathiphyllum has produced chaos. Spectacular "artificial" cultivars > now > | > reign where only elegantly adapted natural species existed before. > | Species > | > evolved over the mists of time to suit their ecological niches, exactly. > | > Cultivars for Man's "ornament" unrelated to natural evolution & > sometimes > | > degrading of Natural fitness. Most could not survive true competition > in > | > the wild. > | > > | > Is it to be the same history with everything when Man's curiosity leads > | him > | > to try to "improve" upon Nature. If so, then a plea to keep wild > species > | > integrity in cultivation. Another plea objectively to document > heritages > | & > | > pedigrees of all "hybrids" most carefully before allocating meaningless > | > "names". There is hardly a group of "domesticated" animals or plants > | which > | > Man has not tried to improve upon to the detriment & often loss of the > | > "wild" species. But one example dear to me is Symphysodon, "Discus", > | > arguably the "King" of Aquarium Fishes. Over less than three decades, > the > | > arbitrary & mostly undocumented complex hybridisation of these supremely > | > specialised creatures has produced the most extreme degradation of > | Nature's > | > nobility & adapted biodiversity. All for Man's sensationalism. > | > > | > There are major principles here for all those who breed wild species. > Why > | > does one hybridise? Surely, if species have been most carefully > brought > | > into the custody of domestic cultivation from the wild there is an > | > inalienable responsibilityfor Homo sapiens to honour not to trivialise > | > Nature? > | > > | > I have tried to add humour to discussions even on plants which I can say > | > euphemistically are not my favourites. Sorry to be serious. I do not > | mean > | > to be a party pooper but there is a major ethic here. > | > > | > Ron Iles > | > > | > | > | > | GeoffAroid@aol.com@mobot.org on 06/20/2001 02:44:08 AM > | > | > | > | Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org > | > | > | > | Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org > | > | > | > | > | > | To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L > | > | cc: > | > | > | > | Subject: Re: amorpho titanium pollen !!! > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | In a message dated 19/6/01 11:10:48 pm, magrysbo@shu.edu writes: > | > | > | > | << Brian, You're making hybrids? Great. >> > | > | > | > | I have visions of an Amorph with the vigour, hardiness and ability to > | > | divide > | > | of konjac and the size and dramatic structure of titanum; the mind > | > | boggles......I think Wilbert has just fainted at the thought...... > | > | > | > | Geoffrey Kibby > | > | London > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > > | > > | > | > >

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.