Re: Line breeding vs hybridization

From: magrysbo at shu.edu on 2001.06.27 at 15:46:42(6900) Some years back John Lager of the now expunct Lager & Hurrell Orchids submitted a 4th generation cultivated Cattleya labiata for AOS judging. The flowers were so much changed and improved over any wild collected and grown spacimens that the judges disqualified it - claiming it must be of hybrid nature. +More "Wilbert Hetterscheid" @mobot.org on 06/23/2001 08:25:04 PM Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org Sent by: aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L cc: Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization I think what we have here is again the awareness that messing around with objects that originally came from the wild, will eventually lead to objects that won't make it in nature. This is why I and a colleague of mine proposed that we also separate the taxonomies of those objects based on different systematic logic of classification of those objects. They are in 2 different contexts ("worlds") and should not be mixed in classifications with different purposes....bla, bla, bla.... Wilbert Lord P. ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: vrijdag 22 juni 2001 17:57 Subject: Re: Line breeding vs hybridization > Perhaps this is a bit simple for some of you but it occurs to me that man > hybridizes to mirror himself in immortality by putting his name on the > offspring "he" has created. Nature hybridizes for a systematic effect, > survival. Man hybridizes many times haphazardly but can maintain the > offspring artificially. > To me one of the best examples of ruining a species by hybridization are > meat cows. They need winches to pull out their young, they would not > survive in nature at all. > This is a tremendously interesting discussion! > -- Jill Bell > Graphic Design, Web Design, Illustration and Digital Photography > > > >

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