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
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
