"Hort. species"

[leilani]

"Hort. species", the way I use the term is meant to distinguish a species grex created in the nursery by crossing two plants of the same species but from different populations from a species grex produced by nature. For example, a N. maxima created by crossing a grassland mini N. maxima with a highland form of N. maxima is still, by botanical definition, a N. maxima. However, it is a N. maxima that would never have come to be without human intervention, i.e., it would never be found in nature. So, in some sense it is "unnatural". This seems paradoxical: "species" as an inventory of nature and "species" applied to something that would never occur in nature.

There is a counter to this argument that goes something like "Humans are just as much a part of nature as any other species, therefore, human intervention is as natural as insect" and the problem goes away. The trouble is that, even if the above is true, its not the way most people think about species or human intervention in animal or plant breeding. "Whats more natural than a GMO?" For most, "species" are things found to occur in nature and not the product of human intervention.

For this reason, I like to differentiate the two.

As examples, I have bred N. sanguina, N. maxima, N. ventricosa and N. insignis in the nursery. Of these four crossings I would consider only the N. insignis, bred from male and female from the same population to be true species plants. The others, along with ep's house bred N. truncata I would call "Hort. species".

The issue gets even sticker when you consider natural hybrids. I have in my collection a natural hybrid of N. tobaica x' spectabilis. I have also bred N. tobaica x spectabilis in the nursery to produce the same hybrid. Is one natural and one not?

[dvg]

It shows that you have put some thought into your definition of "Hort. species" Leilani.

By your definition, the N. tobaica x spectabilis cross that you bred in your nursery would only be deemed natural if the two species were located close enough together in situ so that they naturally hybridize there.

The bigger problem is getting consensus among the majority to agree to what a "Hort species" is by definition.

As the grexing of Nepenthes hybrids has shown, gaining agreement among the various Nepenthes factions is a tricky endeavor.




dvg

[Dave Evans]

Jun 13, 2013 22:28:43 GMT -10 leilani said:

"Hort. species", the way I use the term is meant to distinguish a species grex created in the nursery by crossing two plants of the same species but from different populations from a species grex produced by nature. For example, a N. maxima created by crossing a grassland mini N. maxima with a highland form of N. maxima is still, by botanical definition, a N. maxima. However, it is a N. maxima that would never have come to be without human intervention, i.e., it would never be found in nature.

I'm not so inclined to agree. I think that simply breeding two locations together is just not species-level hybridization if they really are the same species it is intra-species hybridization--you're creating a new variety within N. maxima.

So, in some sense it is "unnatural". This seems paradoxical: "species" as an inventory of nature and "species" applied to something that would never occur in nature.

There is a counter to this argument that goes something like "Humans are just as much a part of nature as any other species, therefore, human intervention is as natural as insect" and the problem goes away.

Way simplistic. We humans perform many natural behaviors and our use of technology is how we generally perform our "unnatural" activities. Our breeding wolves into dogs was completely natural. Cutting and pasting genes? No natural systems on Earth have been shown to do this... And if it happens randomly, this is process would still be unlike what we do with GMO's.

As examples, I have bred N. sanguina, N. maxima, N. ventricosa and N. insignis in the nursery. Of these four crossings I would consider only the N. insignis, bred from male and female from the same population to be true species plants. The others, along with ep's house bred N. truncata I would call "Hort. species".

The issue gets even sticker when you consider natural hybrids. I have in my collection a natural hybrid of N. tobaica x' spectabilis. I have also bred N. tobaica x spectabilis in the nursery to produce the same hybrid. Is one natural and one not?

If you take two plants from Lake Hamburg and cross them, I can't see any reason not to call the seed by the location data... I also don't see any reason not to mention the seed was made in your greenhouse. The hybrid status doesn't mean/have anything to do with the location... Which might be the issue at hand...?

If you artifacially recreate (horticulture) an example of a naturally occurring hybrid.... It is still an example of a naturally occurring hybrid. The hybrid didn't suddenly stop being the product of natural process just because you have helped out a couple of times. You're just copying a natural system already in place.

[Robiii]

"The way I use the term is meant to distinguish a species grex created in the nursery by crossing two plants of the same species but from different populations from a species grex produced by nature. For example, a N. maxima created by crossing a grassland mini N. maxima with a highland form of N. maxima is still, by botanical definition, a N. maxima. However, it is a N. maxima that would never have come to be without human intervention, i.e., it would never be found in nature. So, in some sense it is "unnatural". This seems paradoxical: "species" as an inventory of nature and "species" applied to something that would never occur in nature."


As for the highland and low land maxima breeding, I don't think we can rule out insect breeding, insects get blown around and in the right situation they do have chance at breeding these two individuals. Now if you had said a maxima from Papua New Guinea and a maxima from Samatra, I'd be in more of an agreement. Though being on a rock separated 3000 miles from any other land mass with life finding it's way here it's hard to say. It's sort of like the Sechelles they have the largest "coconut" (it's also one of the oldest known surviving palms on Earth) the funny thing with this one is the nut sinks in water so how being on an island did it get there?

Back to Hort species though, technically I'd agree on what you stated as for breeding two that are less likely to breed in the wild be labeled differently. Than two plants that are of the same naturally occurring geographic area.

"The issue gets even sticker when you consider natural hybrids. I have in my collection a natural hybrid of N. tobaica x' spectabilis. I have also bred N. tobaica x spectabilis in the nursery to produce the same hybrid. Is one natural and one not?"

Yes I'd say one is natural and one isn't by the current 'standard.'

[Robiii]

Uhh, ok? That was it two replies and dead or is it just me?

[hcarlton]

This forum can be vey slow at times....
Labeling the plants crossed in a greenhouse as opposed to ones cultivated from wild material will be different, and varieties of the same species that were thousands of miles apart (take for example, a mirabilis from China and cross it with one from Australia) ought to be recognized as not being crosses possible naturally, but there's no reason to say it still isn't the same species, just a new form found only in horticulture.

[dueoka]

Jun 14, 2013 13:05:57 GMT -10 Dave Evans said:

If you take two plants from Lake Hamburg and cross them, I can't see any reason not to call the seed by the location data... I also don't see any reason not to mention the seed was made in your greenhouse. The hybrid status doesn't mean/have anything to do with the location... Which might be the issue at hand...?

I agree. While it is important to differentiate between nursery bred "natural" and "unnatural" species, in my opinion they are both "hort. species". While the natural species and the wild collected species are both examples of what would normally occur in a wild population, there is a big difference. The conditions in the nursery are far different from the wild and this is bound to impart some changes on the plants. While this may not be as dramatic as the EP's red truncata, changes are inevitable due to nursery selection in the parental (wild collected) generation. The (F1) nursery bred plants cannot be grouped with wild collected individuals. While it is important to keep location data, it is just as important to deem the plant "nursery bred" in some form. From a conservationist standpoint I imagine it would be crucial to differentiate between the two if it was necessary to introduce plants back into the wild. I, however am by no means a taxonomist or conversationist.

[leilani]

"From a conservationist standpoint I imagine it would be crucial to differentiate between the two if it was necessary to introduce plants back into the wild."

It was this consideration that prompted me to make the distinction.

[Dave Evans]

Jun 18, 2013 19:43:32 GMT -10 dueoka said:

While the natural species and the wild collected species are both examples of what would normally occur in a wild population, there is a big difference. The conditions in the nursery are far different from the wild and this is bound to impart some changes on the plants.

huh? I think this is a rather large jump. If you're subjecting your plants to a breeding program as Geoff is, then your idea about the plants no longer representing wild type plants is accurate. It would be a rather poor idea to use plants bred this way for conservation replanting.

However, if your goal is to conserve a large population of a few species, I see no season they cannot be managed in a ways that maintain the plants' wild charateristics and phenotypes.

While this may not be as dramatic as the EP's red truncata, changes are inevitable due to nursery selection in the parental (wild collected) generation. The (F1) nursery bred plants cannot be grouped with wild collected individuals. While it is important to keep location data, it is just as important to deem the plant "nursery bred" in some form. From a conservationist standpoint I imagine it would be crucial to differentiate between the two if it was necessary to introduce plants back into the wild. I, however am by no means a taxonomist or conversationist.

As a conservationist, I really don't care that there has been some selection going on in the greenhouses as long as the plants are still ecologically fit. Nepenthes make a lot of seed and very little makes into the the next generation unless the seed in falling onto freshly exposed soil. In the absence of competion, Nepenthes seedlings do great. Same as in cultivation. I'm not sure how much "unnatural selection" is actually taking place.

I feel it is more a question of will their ecology still be there? Will the climate change so much many species are effectively left with no time to adapt and evolve?

[dueoka]

I was not implying that nursery crossed species should not be introduced into the wild, only that wild collected species should have some precedence over their greenhouse equivalents. IMO no matter how small, selection in the nursery will always occur, altering the species in an "unnatural" way. While you may not agree with the above, like you said in your previous post...

Jun 14, 2013 13:05:57 GMT -10 Dave Evans said:

I also don't see any reason not to mention the seed was made in your greenhouse.

I have slowly learned that it can never hurt to record all you know about a plant. Collecting and recording nursery numbers, dealers, dates, etc can be helpful for future reference. If it only takes a few seconds to write "hort" after a species name (either on a computer or tag) why not? Then if it ever becomes necessary to reintroduce the plants, the information is available.

[Dave Evans]

Actually, what I'm saying is if you want to use plants for conservation purposes, you need to be growing them as part of a conservation program. You would cultivate them differently--segregated from collections of other nepenthes to reduce genetic contamination. Removing flower stalks will work, but when it comes time to make seed planting out back into the wild, they have to be away from other pollinizers.

Also, you would try to keep the number of generations in cultivation as low as possible and since Nepenthes can live for hundreds of years, this isn't much of a problem--just keep your records in order.