If you'd like Dendrophylax lindenii x funalis to be more readily available then please vote here... Dendrophylax lindenii x Dendrophylax funalis (more tolerant Ghost Orchid)
**********************************************
Catt Mandu, you added me to your ignore list and in return I'm going to...not add you to my ignore list. For some reason I don't think that I'd be doing myself any favors by ignoring people who I disagree with. Perhaps it's because I've studied fallibilism enough to accept the fact that it's entirely possible that I'm wrong about most things.
Even though you're not going to see my reply (unless you log out and view this thread)...I'm going to reply to you anyways. You brought up some points and I'm going to attempt to adequately address the relevant ones. This being a public forum and all.
Is it far-fetched that introduced pythons would unintentionally crush Florida's Ghost Orchid (Dendrophylax lindenii) into extinction? Perhaps a bit. But I don't think it's far fetched that the introduction of a new predator could somehow indirectly harm (or benefit) the Ghost Orchid. If you bothered to read and were able to understand the passage* by Darwin that I shared earlier, then you wouldn't think it's far fetched either.
Of course you could argue that pythons should never have been introduced in the first place. Just like you could argue that humans should never have caused global warming. But extinctions occurred long before us humans appeared on the scene and they will continue to occur long after we're gone. Change is a constant...it benefits some and harms others.
Generally speaking, the narrower an organism's environmental parameters...the more likely it is to be adversely impacted by change. And as I, and many others, can personally attest to... the Ghost Orchid is, relatively speaking, very easy to kill. Dendrophylax funalis, by comparison, is much more tolerant of a wider range of conditions. It will happily grow outdoors year around in warmer parts of Southern California.
Let me break this argument down...
Premise 1: Species with narrower parameters are more likely to be harmed by change.
Premise 2: The Ghost Orchid has very narrow parameters.
Conclusion: The Ghost Orchid is more likely to be harmed by change (ie climate).
In order to help protect the Ghost Orchid...assuming that this is something that we want to do...there are two possible approaches...
- Change the conditions to match the Ghost Orchid's preferences.
- Change the Ghost Orchid's preferences to match the conditions.
Either the mountain goes to Mohammed, or Mohammed goes to the mountain.
The current approach to conservation is to try and undo some of the damage that we've done to the planet. The problem is that we're all responsible for the damage but only a very small group of people are genuinely and actively concerned with undoing the damage. In order for significant progress to be made there would have to be a massive mobilization of significant resources. And these resources, like all resources, could be put to other uses. Maybe even more valuable uses. This is the fundamentally important economic concept known as "opportunity cost".
From my perspective, it would behoove us to seriously consider the merits of the internal approach. With the internal approach we would acknowledge that it's dangerous for overly specialized epiphytic orchids to be adapted to conditions which no longer exist. The Florida that the Ghost Orchid is adapted to no longer exists and will never exist again. If we want this orchid to continue to survive, then we should seriously consider helping it to adapt to the conditions that do exist.
Early in this thread I acknowledged that this approach isn't "conservation" as we know it. The best term that I've been able to come up with for this internal approach is "herclivation". Of course anybody is welcome to come up with a better term. "Herclivation" is loosely derived from "Heraclitus"...the Greek philosopher who argued that change is the one constant... "no man ever steps in the same river twice".
Herclivation of the Ghost Orchid would involve introducing a cross between D. lindenii and funalis into the wild. Out of curiosity I looked this cross up on the RHS website and found it... Polyphylax Gripp's Ghost. It took a couple tries to find it because the RHS has "Polyradicion" listed as the genus for lindenii rather than "Dendrophylax".
Here's a very brief breakdown of their habitat preferences...
Species of Dendrophylax occur from sea level to about 1600m (D. macrocarpus (Dod) Carlsward & Whitten). Many are found in shaded sites with high humidity on tree trunks (D. lindenii) but may also be found in xeric habitats of shrubs or small trees (D. porrectus) or on limestone rocks (D. funalis). - Alec M. Pridgeon, Phillip J. Cribb, Mark W. Chase, Genera Orchidacearum Volume 6: Epidendroideae
D. lindenii prefers more humidity/shade while D. funalis prefers less humidity/shade. The differences in their preferences could result in hybrids with a continuum of humidity/shade preferences. This general situation was briefly considered in the book, "The Botany of Orchids"...
Cutting of forests and the planting of tree crops in the tropics may provide intermediate habitats which permit the survival of hybrids between orchid species which grow in distinct niches. An example would be that of populations of plants which grow in sun and others which grow in shade and are thereby ecologically isolated. Filtered sun in agricultural plantings might support intermediate hybrids. The hybrids may backcross with the parental types and may cross among themselves. The result would be a highly variable hybrid swarm. Recombination types might be more successful than either of the previous species. - Calaway H. Dodson, Robert J. Gillespie, The Botany of Orchids
The Ghost Orchid is pollinated by the Giant Sphinx moth (Cocytius antaeus) but I wasn't able to learn whether or not it also pollinates funalis. Funalis has a shorter spur than lindenii. It stands to reason though that a moth with a long proboscis (straw) would have no problem drinking nectar from an orchid with a short spur (cup).
It's a given that there's some variation in spur and straw length. Both the moth and the Ghost Orchid probably didn't simultaneously and independently develop their long appendages over night. Most likely moths with longer straws had greater fitness because they could drink from a greater range of cup sizes.
Does Gripp's Ghost have an intermediately sized spur? It's not that easy to discern, but in this picture of Gripp's Ghost it does appear that the spur is somewhat intermediate in length. I'm sure that some of the seedlings from that cross had longer or shorter spurs... depending on which parent they inherited the relevant traits from.
If we introduced a "highly variable hybrid swarm" of Gripp's Ghost to Florida then this would increase the chances of finding variations that match some of the available environmental conditions.
Hopefully there would be a variation for the half a million acres of Florida orange groves. This variation would have to combine lindenii's preference for shade and funalis' tolerance of dryness. Maybe a slightly different variation would be suitable for Florida Christmas tree farms. How awesome would that be to purchase a Christmas tree with live orchids growing on it? It would be really hard top the Ghost Orchid as an ornament. Talk about value added. Errrr... well... Jack Skellington would certainly approve. And maybe Charles Dickens as well.
Florida's Ghost Orchid, as it is, already has some degree of variation. But do we really want to gamble its existence on the slim chance that it has enough variation to succeed in modern Florida? Why not hedge our bets by greatly increasing the amount of variation that it has?
Rather than just having one Ghost Orchid...Florida could have a wide variety of them. We could give them labels based on their niche type. The original/current ghost orchid would be the Shady Cypress Ghost Orchid...then there would be the Sunny Cypress Ghost Orchid...and the Orange Ghost Orchid...and the Christmas Ghost Orchid...and the Limestone Ghost Orchid...and so on.
Would it matter to some kid in Florida two hundred years from now that the Ghost Orchid he discovered flowering on the mango tree in his backyard was different than the Ghost Orchid that was adapted to prehistoric Florida? I really don't think so. And neither would whichever moth benefited from the orchid's nectar. Both the moth and the kid would linger longer in the garden as a direct result of the Ghost Orchid blooming on the mango tree. Perhaps with newfangled video technology the kid could easily and professionally document the moth pollinating the orchid. Not sure though if his video would be as high quality as my video of a hummingbird hawk-moth pollinating phlox in Afghanistan...
Like I stated in the beginning, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. Maybe herclivation isn't the best approach. But it's based on the fundamentally sound principle that we should avoid putting too many eggs in one basket...
First, diversity often enhances the robustness of complex systems. By robustness, I mean the ability to maintain functionality (Jen 2005) rather than analytic stability. Systems that lack diversity can lose functionality. History has many examples of failure through lack of diversity, the potato famine being among the most notable. The potato must be counted among the most precious of gifts introduced into Europe during the age of exploration. Of the thousands of varieties of potato grown in Central and South America at their disposal, the Europeans imported primarily two. This lack of genetic variation presented a huge target for parasites. When the potato blight hit, it found field up field of genetically similar potatoes. Though nearly a million Irish perished, even more relocated to America. Diversity at the community level - America had a different mix of crops from Ireland - minimized the global impact of the blight. Had every country been subsisting on potatoes as Ireland had, the famine would have been an even worse calamity.
Second, diversity drives innovation and productivity. In biology, the forces of mutation and recombination are well known to be primary sources of innovation. In economies, variation and experimentation also lead to innovation, and, as Arthur (2009) convincingly shows, so does recombination. In fact, recombination may be the biggest driver of economic and scientific innovation. As for productivity, I've covered some of this terrain in an earlier book (Page 2007a), but it's worth repeating. Whether one looks at ecosystems, empires, or cities, greater diversity for the most part correlates with greater productivity. Cities that are more diverse are more productive and more innovative. - Scott E. Page, Diversity and Complexity
Luckily, tens of thousands of pioneers wouldn't have to be housed all in one starship. Spreading people out among multiple ships also spreads out the risk. Modular ships could dock together for trade and social gatherings, but travel separately so that disaster for one wouldn't spell disaster for all, says Smith.
When 10,000 people are housed in one starship, there's a potential for a giant catastrophe to wipe out almost everyone onboard. But when 10,000 people are spread out over five ships of 2000 apiece, the damage is limited. - Sarah Fecht, How Many People Does It Take to Colonize Another Star System?
When a great company, or even a great merchant, has twenty or thirty ships at sea, they may, as it were, insure one another. The premium saved upon them all, may more than compensate such losses as they are likely to meet with in the common course of chances. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Farming is inherently risky. Weather, insects and disease, over which you have limited control or none at all, can wipe you out. One of the ways farmers manage risk is to plant variety. Okay, powdery mildew got your strawberries, but the broccoli’s going gangbusters. For farmers, crops that are given guaranteed protection from both losses and price drops are lower-risk propositions. - Brian Stauffer, Farm bill: Why don’t taxpayers subsidize the foods that are better for us?
Right now the Ghost Orchid is in
Again, I'm not saying that herclivation is the right answer...I'm just saying that it deserves serious consideration.
**********************************************
*plants and animals, most remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. [...] I have [...] reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have tried, I have found that the visits of bees, if not indispensable, are at least highly beneficial to the fertilisation of our clovers; but humble-bees alone visit the common red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that 'more than two thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England.' Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman says, 'Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice.' Hence it is quite credible that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district! - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
As a certified master naturalist - this is one of the weirdest, pseudoscientific and confusing things I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteDoes this make more sense?
Delete"Based on future projection of their ecological niche, and given that conditions suitable for these hybrid zones will exist, the hybrid zones can therefore be seen as a source of raw material for natural adaptive change [61,62]. In this light, the definition of species should better focus on traits that lead to adaptation and conservation efforts should be targeted towards evolutionary processes that generate taxonomic biodiversity instead of preserving the taxonomic entities beyond these processes [63]. Although this strategy cannot be applied to all organisms, it certainly provides a good framework for determining evolutionarily important units [63,64] that are worthy of protection and management in species with complex reticulate scenarios, such as those in the present investigation." - Marques et al, Multiple hybridization events, polyploidy and low postmating isolation entangle the evolution of neotropical species of Epidendrum (Orchidaceae)
The paper you cite here about multiple hybridizations and introgressions in the Epidendrums is a natural phenomena occuring in species that have low postmating isolation so in essence natural hybrids and introgressions whereas what you propose is artifical manmade hybrid, these are two completely different things. A better idea would be to cross pollinate D. lindenii plants from different areas, collect the seeds, micropropagate the seedlings and reintroduce them to all the natural habitats and let natural selection weed out the less fit less adaptive individuals with the weaker alles, this way you will exploit the natural variation within the species, than introducing artifically a gene pool from another species.
DeleteThanks for the comment, I posted my reply to your comment here.
DeleteAlso, just to be sure, here's my recent blog entry...herclivation...which provides a much more robust case for translocation / hybridization.
As to your question about variation and where to draw a line, the answer is simple again, if your goal is to conserve a species you have to look at the variation available within the said species, not from outside the species. Secondly as agin I said if you were to look at naturally introgressing species it could be considered but artificial hybrids cannot be.
DeleteThis analysis you quote
Delete''However, selfing is rare in orchids and this brings us back to the question of the role of hybridization in speciation. A general review of the problem may help us to hypothesize on the orchid situation. Hybrids appear to be exceedingly uncommon among rain-forest trees, and the most likely explanation is that there is strong selective pressure against hybridization (Ashton, 1969). On the other hand, few tropical forest species are able to colonize cleared sites, while a number of examples exist of successful colonization of such areas by hybrids. (As, for example, hybrids referred to by van Steenis, 1969, and Hevea Aubl., by Seibert and Baldwin, as quoted by Stebbins, 1950, p. 264) The reason for this is that plants in a more or less undisturbed habitat are adapted to that habitat or they would not have survived there. Genetic recombination - as well as mutation - simply by being different gives rise to a great preponderance of genotypes not adapted to the environment. It is also probable that species adaptation is based to a large extent upon epistatic gene interaction (i.e., interaction at different loci), in which case the complex interacting system will very easily be upset by hybridization (Mayr, 1969; Stebbins, 1969). Rarely, recombination may give rise to plants adapted to a different environment, hence the survival of hybrids perhaps at points of natural environmental transition and most certainly at points where disturbance has led to removal of most competitors as well as change in the nonbiotic environment. More rarely still, recombinations may give rise to individuals better adapted to the same envirionment inhabited by the parents (i.e., having superior competitive adaptability). - William W. Sanford, The Ecology of Orchids''
Has to also do with natural hybrids not manmade hybrids. And not all genera and species are promiscuous. The fact that you do not observe natural hybrids for D. lindenii makes a strong case to not consider introduction of artificial hybrids in its environment.
Another conceptual glaring flaw with your hypothesis is that you simply assume that D. lindenii is not suitable to the current habitat and that genes from D. funalis are somehow going to help it recolonize these habitats. What makes you think that? From what I have read over-collection and destruction of the habitats has had the biggest impact on the species, not any changes in the environment. Is there any scientific publication that proves that D. lindenii is less suited to recolonization of its natural range like replantations in florida gardens, previously overcollected habitats etc. What is the need to introduce a hybrid? Will it answer the question of habitat destruction or overcollection?
Delete''The Florida that the Ghost Orchid is adapted to no longer exists and will never exist again.''
ReplyDeleteIn what terms? Has the climate changed that considerably in a few years, that a species that probably evolved for millions of years is unable to cope up with it? The species has survived much worse in terms of climatic change rest assured. What has changed though is may be forest cover and land use. A hybrid with another species does not solve this problem unless this hybrid is able to stop people from cutting down trees where it grows or from collecting it.
You're not reading very carefully. It's a waste of my time to have to direct you to information that's right in front of you.
DeleteLike I said in my post, D. lindenii is notoriously easy to kill. It requires very precise conditions. Even somebody who lives very close to where it occurs naturally cannot grow it in their garden. D. funalis, on the other hand, is much easier to grow. In fact it can grow outdoors year around here in Southern California even though our climate is very dry. This means that it should have no problem growing on exposed garden trees in Southern Florida. Florida is much more humid and has a much higher average temperature than here in Southern California.
If you had carefully read Sanford's passage, then you would know that he said that forest species rarely colonize cleared sites but hybrids have been known to do so. Given that Florida has many cleared sites, based on Sander's observation, it's possible that lindenii x funalis would be able to grow in them.
If the hybrid can grow in orchards...then the owners of the land would prevent people from chopping down their trees. Regarding collecting...lindenii grows very low on trees which makes it easier to see and collect. I think it's possible that the hybrid would grow higher on trees...given that funalis has no problem with bright light and less humidity.
To learn more about lindenii...Leafless Orchids In this blog entry...herclivation...I included a passage on the impact that climate change could have on mesic species. Please carefully and thoroughly read that entire blog entry so you don't bring up points or questions that have already been addressed.