|
Post by leilani on Oct 17, 2009 22:03:46 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by Marcello Catalano on Oct 18, 2009 1:32:16 GMT -10
;D I don't imagine anything so visible and expensive ;D You can remove the signs, the cameras and the "cage". Lots of private properties in Thailand are already surrounded by barbed wire of the straight type, and some of them have Nepenthes inside already. I would only use the round type, on the ground and not just around. The type is this: electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/ei_m7.jpgYou see that animals can easily go through, but people can't walk in a place covered with that. Extreme? Ok, but as Sirkristoff said, we have to choose the options that are less bad. In Thailand we are talking about the last 1-4 colonies left before some species are extinct forever - as they only grow in Thailand. They grow in small, hidden, lost places, every colony covering an area of a few ten square meters. My solution would be perfect. If someone had done that with clipeata many years ago... Of course if a bog of many km is full of N. rafflesiana, this is not the best way, but at this point we also have to remember that each Country and each species should be treated in a different way regarding conservation. Talking about Thailand, there are just 5 taxa that need protection straight away because they could be extinct in 1-2 years: N. kampotiana, N. kongkandana, N. "Viking", N. sp. Pangà and N. sp. Surat. They grow (they grew?) in little pieces of savannah among plantations or among private properties that are going to be used for building activities. I've seen these colonies being destroyed as if they were nothing, and would be happy with barbed wire, not with a plant in every class. Of course we can all have different ideas, each person can move on with his own idea and work with other people just on the ideas about which they agree. We don't necessarily have to create a common plan where everybody agree. I see that we're still talking about Thailand only, while in other Countries we would need to know which species are in danger and how they could be better protected. Rob Tan, are you there? What do you know about the Malay growers and the status of conservation of the local species? Tranh, as you said, the point we are discussing is: ok for propagating the plants in cultivation, with seeds and cuttings, and put them back in the forest, that's the easy part. But HOW can we protect the forest from the poachers that will arrive the following day? Asking the government? Making the people sensitive to the problem? Using barbed wire?... do you have any idea?
|
|
|
Post by shawnintland on Oct 18, 2009 2:54:18 GMT -10
You are right - we don't all need to agree in order to move forward! Hee, hee, hee! Maybe you can hire those red beret guards with their automatic weapons and a tank or two as well! :>) I just can't see a deer, dog, cow or other animal 'easily passing through' that stuff at a run! It is easy to see there, stretched out on a cement roadway but give it a year or two's grass/weed growth and it'll be perfectly camouflaged. I just dealt with running into that stuff in Nepal jungles in the past months.
"I've seen these colonies being destroyed as if they were nothing, and would be happy with barbed wire, not with a plant in every class. "
Cello, I really doubt that you could imagine me meaning putting an extremely rare plant of a species on the verge of extinction in the hands of young children as a means of teaching them about their country's national heritage! I imagine N. mirabilis or something as tough and hard to kill would be the best option for rank beginners.
Now, just for the heck of it, how do people weigh in on the idea of starting secondary colonies of such rare and endangered species? Since people are already taking seeds of these "taxa which could be extinct in 1-2 years" and distributing them around the world, I wonder is it realistic to consider taking small quantities of seed from one colony and introducing them to 'new' territory (I mean somewhat nearby, not in another region)? Could the odds of their survival be increased by multiple growing locations? I realize that they also might be poached at multiple locations but the likelihood of all multiple locations being discovered seems less likely than a single one. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping that is already the case - that there ARE other 'undiscovered' colonies growing around us. After all, the areas of possible growth are quite large when compared to the number of people 'seriously' searching for them! As I'm sure Marcello has seen, very few 'common' people here could tell you the difference between a N. mirabilis and a N. gracilis, if they even paid any attention to them at all.
|
|
|
Post by Marcello Catalano on Oct 18, 2009 3:30:38 GMT -10
Oooooh, that's the other way I asked you to remind me about a few posts ago I had the same identical idea. I know the areas very well, and I know this can be done! In the case of N. kampotiana, you just need to spend a whole day walking around on the nearby slope and mountain, and you get forgotten places that will never be found, and where secondary colonies would grow great! Two factors that we must be very careful with are: -in the second place there can't be other species colonies, or we lose the pure species. -we must be sure that the habitat is very good, because if they didn't grow there for millions of years, there must be a reason but history tells us that introduction in different habitats worked many times. Discovering other hidden and unreachable colonies is also good, because you can "relax" and move you attention towards another species. Now, people can say: "that's not natural anymore", or "you are introducing a species where it didn't exist, it's a risk". But then I remind you that you can choose between a secondary colony and this (courtesy of Rob Tan): Shawn, if you get in touch with Trong (I told him to follow this discussion anyway), just tell him about the land you have at disposal to propagate endangered species, and that we are discussing how re-introduction can be done. He's going around all the time, and will be happy to collect seeds of the above mentioned species. Please guys do not lose time and room with seeds of other local species, I know it can be fun, but time and room should go towards the species that seriously risk, that are mentioned above. ps: where the above mentioned, endangered species grow, there are no deers or cows, just snakes, frogs and cars running on the nearby main road...
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Oct 18, 2009 7:53:20 GMT -10
Shawn - good luck with your endeavours.
I would think secondary colonies is a must. 'Eggs in one basket' and all that.
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Oct 18, 2009 12:48:53 GMT -10
OH! ..... you mean the "eco-friendly" type of razor-wire. ;D That's better. To some extent I am just teasing you. There may actually be some circumstance where such a solution is viable. On the other hand, if this is what it comes to then, the battle may already be lost. It seem pretty straightforward when we are just talking about a few colonies or a couple of species but the real questions are much larger. We all love Nepenthes here and nobody want to see them disappear in the wild. Still, we are a select, highly biased, group of naturalists and nurserymen who see Nepenthes as great natural wonders. Others surely have their favorite species and will want to preserve ferns, wild flowers or cash crops and the inevitable question arises: Where does it end? We can't put razor-wire around every endangered species and, even if we did, we would lose the beauty we hope to preserve in the process. In the big picture it really make little sense to focus on small colonies of our favorite species. This is not to say that we should not save what we can but, to some degree, these kinds of species specific conservation efforts miss the point. What must be saved is entire eco-systems. If you save a colony of Nepenthes but lose the surrounding environment (insects, companion plants, native trees, weather patterns, etc.) then, what have you saved? You may as well have put them in the museum. Large national parks may be the only real solution. Sections of whole eco-systems and not just this or that favorite species. I know, I know ...... smaller nations, poor economy, powerful business interests, etc. make it unlikely that such large national parks are going to spring up where they are needed and before the loss of many, many species. Still, it is only by the protecting whole eco-systems that we approach the goal of preserving the biological complexity we call "nature".
|
|
|
Post by Marcello Catalano on Oct 18, 2009 13:49:14 GMT -10
I can't say that you're wrong, but still I can't avoid thinking: say whatever you want, but if there was barbed wire over that clipeata colony, it wouldn't be extinct, if there was barbed wire on that kampotiana colony, it wouldn't be extinct, etc. It's bad? It's not how it should go? Ok, then nothing, let's ignore the problem. Because we "should" do this and that, but that's impossible. So let's do nothing. Well, I still prefer the barbed wire and... so far, even the "back-up colony" idea.
I wouldn't adopt a cat if I was you; if everybody adopts his favourite pet, we will end up with houses full of wolves and whales! I wouldn't send a penny to Africa by the way; if you send a penny to everybody who needs it, you'll become poor! Come on....
|
|
|
Post by shawnintland on Oct 19, 2009 4:14:20 GMT -10
Cello, I think its better we start to look into anti-tank mines! They will hold off the bulldozers which are really much more of a problem than the collectors/poachers! If positioned correctly there won't be much effect on the plants except the occasional shrapnel wounds! Sorry, I just can't help myself!
|
|
|
Post by Marcello Catalano on Oct 19, 2009 6:09:31 GMT -10
I already own a few dozens of those (Milan can be a dangerous city), this might be the right moment to use them... Let me check in the basement...
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Oct 19, 2009 9:07:40 GMT -10
I didn't realise that there was even any doubt over this fact these days. Absolutely 100% correct. But secondary colonies within these protected areas wouldn't hurt. So how do we go about trying to get some of these areas protected.
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 19, 2009 10:43:40 GMT -10
I still am a believer that what you have in captivity should be maintained and propagated even to the hypothesis of inbredism (many species of plants, animals, etc. are only perpetuated through artificial propagation, yet we don't see them being extinct inbred species), careful horticultural practices have kept many species from extinction even while the gene pool remains limited and left to a few. Dear Micheal, Besides for the desire to protect the plants, this quote is again loaded with misinformation. Every conservation organization is concerned with inbreeding. Plenty of crops and even animals have become inbred to the point of no longer functioning. Where do you get all your bogus information from? Man made cultivars and animal breeds are all subject to inbreeding and have to be genetically replenished for time to time because people are not good care takers. Cats aren't inbred because they take care of that themselves. Plenty of dogs are so inbred they become dangerous, like Dalmatians and Pit-bulls or have super high cancer risks. Now these breeds either have to bred again with healthy dogs, or they have to be genetically reprogrammed with better genes. Inbreeding is a very large problem for growing plants and raising animals. How is it even possible you don't know this?
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 19, 2009 11:27:16 GMT -10
I doesn't have any nepenthes produce flower yet but return seeds to the forest is easy but that plants grow then people keep taking a whole plants so it can be useless. You can buy a nepenthes thorelli with 5 - 6 years old only 15$ or less. So nepenthes are disappear and to stop those people, we can tell other grower don't buy plants that from jungle. That just my idea. - Minh Exactly so. People should be buying seed grown plants, not plants removed from their habitat. The problem is this is part of the people's culture, and people hate to change their culture even if it just to remove the bad parts... The cure is education The situation is not hopeless. Some plants might be safe from extinction even if they are harvested from the wild, but not so for Nepenthes because of their slow growth and development. To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with using cultivation as part of a system designed to maintain as much genetic stock as possible. If a country has no respect for its natural wonders and someone from another country is willing to take part in such a project, go for it. Collect cuttings and seed. Sue the government if you have to, just to make them do their jobs. Time is running out.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Oct 19, 2009 13:56:32 GMT -10
What does this have to do with nepenthes? Can someone explain this to me in simple terms so I can see what the message of how dinosaur bones (extinct sp) has to do with a plant that is not YET extinct. I hope you don't go into detail of these "1000 faces" as most people want to hear what you need to say in less than a thousand words (according to known sources).
As for conservation in the wild, this would be the same idea under a different name. If private land is secured for growing wild nepenthes, this is the same idea as growing them in a private collection. Nothing is ever wild on protected land.
Proably a better solution would be (as I've been saying all along) is to create species seed from already cultivated plants. Of course you'll have the clonies who will settle for tc retards so of course let's make some tc clonies for them and the rest of us who are more into true species conformity and conservation can purchase the seed originals and grow thm on for invaluable seed making or pollen.
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Oct 19, 2009 13:59:07 GMT -10
Name one. Please document your sources please.
M
and for the record dalmations and pit bulls are not species but races of dogs. Having inbred races can lead to problems genetically, but species are rather immune to these inbreeding problems.
Our local Chameleo jacksonii is from a single pair brought into the islands, with their babies released to start the many generations of pure species now existing with the same conformity and appearances as true species without having being "inbred." So this is true with a species of wallaby (originally from a single pregnant female released) found on Oahu, has produced some generations of inbreeding that biologists believed that they would die off from inbreeding. This has not happened. Today they have actually evolved into a different species even unlike what they were originally from. A single pregnant female started off our local Phelsuma laticauda population here on Oahu and so did a single female coqui frog now developed into what has been called the biggest problem of a species becoming an infesting problem in our state. So BEFORE you discuss inbreeding of species in our lifetime, please know the facts First!
M
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 19, 2009 17:31:28 GMT -10
That is the point here. Just becuase a few species are basically immune to inbreeding; doesn't mean most are. Specifically, Honey Bees have been dieing out due to inbreeding as they are managed by people that have very little in the way of genetic knowledge or understanding.
Sarracenia flava is a well known example for Carnivorous Plants. S. purpurea doesn't have the same problem and new populations can be established from just one plant. Conservation Management of any particular species also has to include making sure inbreeding isn't or doesn't become a problem.
Nepenthes species "A" might not have inbreeding depression as a characteristic, while species "B" does. No one has done any research at all, and since Nepenthes are so long lived, it might takes decades or longer to even realize it has become a problem for a particular species. Perhaps as obligate outbreeders, Nepenthes have already solved this problem... Or perhaps they switched over to obligate outbreeding because inbreeding had started killing off their progeniers and now their DNA is loaded with a bunch of junk...
Another problem with placing species in human care: War. Humans go crazy on a fairly regular basis and start mass murdering each other (and its usually over some BS). Its kind of difficult to protect sensitive species when such turnoils start up. This has to be taken into account in order to develop comprehensive conservation plans. Europe lost almost all their Nepenthes thru two world wars. If there weren't wild plants left to collect from *again* we wouldn't have examples of those species back in cultivation.
Also, some of the more extreme species, like N. lowii are so difficult to cultivate; conservation thru cultivation doesn't even seem like a viable option at this point. Hopefully this changes; but for now the only option for this one is habitat protection. What is the point of being a shrew toilet if there are no more tree shrews?
|
|