The Clipeata Project? What's new?

[rainforest]

I for one do not believe the Clipeata Project is doing anything to save the species from extinction. The team for this project to me has issues that makes it a major conflict of interest. As a research and development organization shouldn't they post their findings and efforts in at least a yearly newsletter or update somewhere. Do they collect monies? How is this monies used and directed towards this project?

The idea to save a species is not to redistribute tc clones into the wild, but rather seed or stem propagated materials with group populations of cluster planting notably male to female plants at a three to one ratio. These can be done randomly and especially in areas protected. Seeds should not be left to chance but collected propagated in a collection and numbered, housed and evaluated for purity. Seed populations can then be taken back to their natural habitat locations to further develop and keep their integrity as wild populations.

MM

[boris]

Hi Michael,
please be sure I see your points. But what is the difference of a tc propagated plant or a stem cutting. Both is an identical clone. Ok ... there are chemicals involved for tc and this could bring out some lousy plants but this could happen also for seed grown plants. I've got lots of seeds germinated plants which are doing very bad and lots which are very superior. With tc you can put out a mass more plants than with stem cuttings but stem cuttings would grow faster. So Wistuba is flooding the market with lots of clipeatas which is good for the species. But it'll take its time until we'll have some sexual active plants. From the resulting seeds can be produced lots of individual plants ... hoping that there'll be females and males from this few clones.
Nevertheless looking at the high price Wistuba takes for a mini tc clipeata I don't believe that the main interest is in saving this species.

Boris

[jimmy]

Hello Boris,

From what I understand:

TC plants are grown in 'perfect' conditions, and use hormones to encourage certain types of growth. The problem is that, when the plants are deflasked, they take time to adapt to the different conditions ex-vitro. Sometimes that can take months or years. Also, the hormones sometimes stay in the plants' systems and/or cause undesirable side-effects, like sterility and immature groth for extended periods of time.
On the other hand, cuttings do not exhibit the side-effects that TC plants sometimes have - even though it is simply a single clone that you are propagating.
I agree that seed-grown plants are the way to go, no doubt about it. But the transition will take time.
The fact that Wistuba is selling only three clones is not a good thing, however. If the species is to be preserved as a species, then some more plants will be needed for seeds that have a good mix of genes in the pool.
And it is pretty sad that Nepenthes species that are 'rare' in cultivation and in the wild are held at such high prices.

Overall, I have to agree with Rainforest on the proper way to conserve a species. I took a similar stance on N. rajah cultivation, etc. in another forum. Boris, I am sure that Rainforest may explain some of these ideas better than myself, and I would not be surprised if this were to become yet another heated debate.

Jimmy

[boris]

right ... ic ... I've grown also lots of orchids from tc. I think this method is quite advanced meanwhile. But what is the solution now. Rip away the seeds found in nature? If there are any. The fact that the plants out of tc might be sterile is frightening indeed.

[jimmy]

No. The solution is not to 'rip away the seeds found in nature' - just to have them collected legally and in controlled manners (not poached by the average Joe Bag-of-Donuts), and distributed to responsible growers until that generation of seed-grown cultivated plants (which would outnumber the possible natural germination rates [about 2%, if they are lucky seeds] by a good amount [up to 80% germination in cultivation]) flower, and then the next generation of seeds can be distributed to all growers to enjoy. And then perhaps that generation may be introduced back into the wild, for the continuation of the species in-situ.It is really important to have material available to all growers before any real effort is made at reintroducing plants into the wild - because if they aren't available commercially, they will be taken from the wild.

Jimmy

[boris]

right ... good point ... that would be a real clipeata project!

Edit:
that's just the way François did for N. bokor and reading that the habitate there gets destroyed by tourism it was no minute too late. I hope the same for the clipeatas.

[rainforest]

Not everyone will agree with me but anything tc'd is a GMO. Not to the extreme where they tamper on a plant's DNA/genetic code, but plants do go through a mutogenic course in vitro. Even orchids from tc have many flaws from being weaker, malformed shape, different color, variegation, internally juvenile development, altered polyploidy, deformities and abnormalities, and in many ways not identical to their origins.
The efforts previously from in vitro clipeatas are much of a waste. Their survival will depend on established plants flowering and making seed available to growers worldwide to save this species. TC is the wrong path for this species survival. Seed grown originals is the correct path to take. There is nothing in nepenthes that tc has saved any species. What tc has done is produce monopolies in the species market. And if we allow ourselves to be taken in under this sheep's wool, we will forever be sorry that we trusted tc clones in the first place.
Look at N. sp. Viking/globosa, a seed grown original is much cheaper than even a wild collected plant! The species is safe in the wild because of such a large seed original population in captivity.

M

[rainforest]

The Clipeata Survival Project (as outlined in CPN Newsletter Dec 2005)
Members of this elitist group: Robert Cantley, Charles Clarke, James Cokendolpher, Barry Rice, Andreas Wistuba. I'm a bit concerned why there isn't any member that is from this region or are indigenous to these parts. These individuals can also work with their government and be helpful in helping to protect these regions.
Background: N. clipeata is endangered due to habitat destruction, over collection and fires.
The article mentioned that they would like to see this species be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I, I would be interested if this poor choice of "saving" this species has occurred.
CSP Objectives: Increase genetic populations in captivity
This is a bad and slow process or ideas. *
Short Term Actions:
1.) Develop a database to track all known clones. Growers will be part of a "Nepenthes clipeata network." I would be interested how large this list is. Has any questionnaire been done yet?
2.) "Publish the threats of N. clipeata ...articles to be published in as many hobbyists venues as possible at least five newsletters, journals and at least four major web sites." Hmmm this article was written in December of 2005, it is now October 2008, do we have at LEAST 5 articles in any newsletters? or How about something regarding N. clipeata in 4 major websites?
3.) "Make in vitro N. clipeata plants easily available worldwide...." This may take a while to produce, but has anything toward this ideal been even done yet? I would think that in three years we'd be closer than we were that many YEARS ago. I find it concerning that some members of this board has conflicts of interest in regards to this topic, as we have already witnessed that rare plants = reason to mark them up higher. So making them more accessible is out of the question unless you own a goose that lays golden eggs!
4.) "Develop and widely publish articles on the...aspects of N. clipeata cultivation, hybrid differentiation, ..." Has any artciles been distributed/written about N. clipeata imposters? I seriously doubt that anything would be mentioned here, especially with all the imposters circulating as true purebred species in tc (i.e. N. platychila, N. sibuyanensis, etc.)
5.) Establish a network to store and distribute N. clipeata pollen and or seed produced..." Again some members of this board may have conflicts of interest here, as if there were ANY seed produced or pollen available, it would definitely NOT be listed as an open availability to anyone circumstance.
6.) Encourage growers of larger plants to exchange cuttings so adult plants of different clones can be housed together and increase chances of concurrent flowering." This is a BAD idea. If you do own a large adult specimen, it is large because you are a great cultivator, we need to keep adult healthy plants safe and doing well. Cutting and rerooting only sets us backwards in this quest to get ahead. We can send pollen and seeds much faster in todays quick paced information and transportation modes of operation, let's keep it this way.
7.) "If appropriate, develop and formalize relationships between the NCSP and ICPS and IUCN." This should be a given and no formality should need to be made. All participants would gladly share pollen or seed if this lead to a better cause for species survival.
8.) "A budget showing expenses and reimburstments should be developed for the NCSP." Has there been one made up? Who's the Secretary-Treasurer here?


*
I believe that wild populations should be monitored and have access for specialty individuals who can collect pollen from true species, keep and store these and do regular visits to these locations and check for breeding females and hand pollinate these plants in the wild and protect seeding spikes from pollen contaminants from interfering with hand pollinated seeds. All seeds collected and germinated among different agencies and select individuals who can properly house and distribute to maintain genetic diversity among good growers. Some can be placed in vitro and be further tc'd, but more should be seed originals. This process should be done for several collections of hand pollinated seeds and continue until possible long term effects of in cultivation populations be strong and steady.
Additional seed stock should also be produced to allow hobbyists to also grow and maintain some genetic diversity and some contribution in saving this species.

We have a success story here in Hawai'i where a very rare and endangered Lobeliad, Brighamia insignis was on the verge of near extinction when a group of individuals saved them by hand pollinating existing plants (these plants grow high above on sheer cliff faces-a similar circumstance as N. clipeata) and today we have so many of this species we find them in everything from dish gardens, plant on a rock, unfortunate houseplants to landscape plants!

I am curious if anything from their objectives have been performed yet? Anyone want to add to this?

M

[Robiii]

I believe that wild populations should be monitored and have access for specialty individuals who can collect pollen from true species, keep and store these and do regular visits to these locations and check for breeding females and hand pollinate these plants in the wild and protect seeding spikes from pollen contaminants from interfering with hand pollinated seeds. All seeds collected and germinated among different agencies and select individuals who can properly house and distribute to maintain genetic diversity among good growers. Some can be placed in vitro and be further tc'd, but more should be seed originals. This process should be done for several collections of hand pollinated seeds and continue until possible long term effects of in cultivation populations be strong and steady.
Additional seed stock should also be produced to allow hobbyists to also grow and maintain some genetic diversity and some contribution in saving this species.

This is what I have been expecting to hear about happening for a while. I'm starting to almost think that there is no such thing except that there's the info above which would lead me to believe it was in affect. Sure hope we hear something about this from someone in the project. N. clipeata is such a unique species, I hope for the best, for it.

Rob

[nepromantic]

The advantage of a variety of seed grown plants is that this maintains a genetically diverse population of plants. A heavily TC population (with only a handfull of clones) runs the risk of leaving a genetic bottle neck with limited variation within the species. A lack of variation exposes the species to greater risk due to environmental and climate changes and attack from disease/viruses. A genetically identical or similar population is susceptible to being wiped out by disease very quickly (examples of this are well known in commercial plant crops such as maize and pine plantations).

For the long term survival of any species it is in the best interest to maintain as genetically diverse a population to allow for any advantages characteristics within the population to help carry the species through time and change. But as you point out if you are going to ask crazy prices for plants this is only going to slow down the establishment of a solid cultivated population. This is only in the interest of the individual and not the species; depends on your point of view but it seems to me to contradict what one would think of a group known as the clipeata survival project. It is good that this issue is being recognised and discussed within the Nepenthes community now which seems to leading to a greater demand for seed grown plants with a known source/history. As long as the original wild plant stocks are not pillaged.

Simon

[rainforest]

This brings me to the original post stating that the members of this elite group have conflicts of interests and this should be a consideration when such a committee is developed fr anything worth saving.
I would feel better if this committee is composed of non-commercial persons who are really into saving this species. Perhaps a few younger hobbyists, a couple of seasoned scientists, and indigenous people of that region. Currently there are no members who are from that region and I feel it is wrong.

M

[rainforest]

Anyone has any updates on the Clipeata Project? Has anything been posted or documented regarding this special group and special rare plant?

If we are to make up imaginary "Protection" groups, I propose we begin with other rare species not clearly listed as dire as clipeata. We can start with N. sumatrana, aristolochioides, hamata, klossii, to name a few.

Since I live all the way away from these habitats, I am sure I am a worthy candidate for an elite officer of these groups too! I/we will depict how these species will be monitored, create make shift methodology criteria for saving these species, create a parent list (but please no tc clones on these lists, I/we only want real clones). WE don't even know if all the clipeata are different clones or all the same. What better way to market selling individual clones when we can sell the same plant for three times the price!

M

[marka]

I tried to find out if the Wistuba 'Mt Kelam' clone was the same as any of the other Wistuba clones (2,U or 3), Wistuba did not reply. It kind of inidcates to me its more of a marketing ploy than a serious attempt at conservation...

[rainforest]

Unfortunately the powers that be allows selected individuals to gather, propagate and distribute rare species without regard to actual documentation for public use. Wistuba has not published any information regarding what sex each clone is and if in fact they are different clones. This was one of my biggest gripes on another forum. But funny how we all wish to learn this information, even though mods, and members were just outraged by my questioning "authority" so as me if the Clipeata Project is to help the clipeata. My answer is the same, the Clipeata Project is to help the growers make more money.
While not as endangered or rare, many growers/collectors from regions where nepenthes are indigenous are documenting, distributing and taking notes on their plants. While these growers are not part of any "project" they are making waves in preserving these nepenthes species from extinction. It is with greatest regard that I pass a salute to these individuals (they know who they are, you probably know of their expeditions, travels and shared information) whom have really opened eyes and minds on some species.
I tend to give a different kind of salute to those of similar but well known projects that amounts to nothing more than pocket money or misinformation used to confuse or control species in the market.
As you can tell with my anguish and disgust in my tone, I am one individual that will not just sit and let this happen.

Good growing, food for thought!

M

[marka]

Well after a bit of persistence, in all fairness I did get a reply. The 'Mt Kelam' clone is a random choice of one of the three named clones. It should come with the actual clone written on the label (although mine didn't). I do think its a bit of hazy marketing as it doesn't state that on the website. On the other hand I could have asked before I bought it...

Anyway it's my best growing clipeata plant, as I didn't know what it was I gave it an experimental (and relatively large) shot of fertiliser last year and its doing great.