A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Again - if this hybrid was discovered in the Everglades, named a newly discovered species and did complement the existing species by not displacing, would everybody be cheering ?

Hasn't happened and won't happen. So who cares?

Having a scientifically illiterate and unethical hybridizer create a new hybrid and releasing it into the wild is completely different than finding a naturally made hybrid. Your argument is irrelevant and I agree; you're diverting from the main issue.

[orchidsarefun]

Isurus79 - I am sure Santa Barbara Orchid Estates - who had created 371 orchids as of 2012 ( per OrchidWiz )- and who created this exact hybrid in 2001 would be interested in your opinion that they are "a scientifically illiterate and unethical hybridizer"
As I said before, and I will say it again - imo the rhetoric being used by certain people on this thread is.........awesome........in a bad way. Chicken Little has serious competition. See - I can also use rhetoric ! I have made and will continue to make numerous hybrids. I am not a scientist. Does that make me an unethical hybridiser and scientifically illiterate ? Or just plain.....evil. I don't have an evil plan to introduce them into the pristine wild to take over the planet, unless I get a corporate sponsor ! See - I can also use rhetoric !
Apologies if I have only quoted certain otp statements. There are a lot of others - I just can't be bothered to go back and get the quotes. And that includes some of what epiphyte has stated. Maybe I have as well but I am not normally given to overblown rhetoric..
This thread is called - "A different way to protect the Ghost Orchid". I keep referring to this as all of a sudden I am "diverting from the main issue" and "premise shifting" because I don't answer to Subrosa's question - "What is your assessment of the relative values of the Everglades vs suburban drainage ditches?" Hah !

I leave it to other readers to reach their own conclusions about who is doing what after reading this entire thread.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Isurus79 - I am sure Santa Barbara Orchid Estates - who had created 371 orchids as of 2012 ( per OrchidWiz )- and who created this exact hybrid in 2001 would be interested in your opinion that they are "a scientifically illiterate and unethical hybridizer"

What the crap are you talking about???? SBOE is not advocating releasing a hybrid into the everglades. Only Epiphyte is doing that. No one has disparaged the creation of hybrids; only their release into natural ecosystems in some ill advised attempt to save a species. In fact, there are several posts in this thread saying as much.

If you're going to play devil's advocate to terrible ideas, at least have the decency to keep up with the conversation.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by isurus79

What the crap are you talking about???? SBOE is not advocating releasing a hybrid into the everglades. Only Epiphyte is doing that. No one has disparaged the creation of hybrids; only their release into natural ecosystems in some ill advised attempt to save a species. In fact, there are several posts in this thread saying as much.

If you're going to play devil's advocate to terrible ideas, at least have the decency to keep up with the conversation.

You quoted my post in your reply. For your information when I said "if this hybrid" I thought it was self-explanatory that it was the hybrid constantly referred to in this thread - and by me specifically in the post you quote. If you are going to use quotes then understand the context. You cannot change the context and expect me to understand you are referring to something else, completely unrelated to what I said.
So that I understand - you are saying that epiphyte is a "scientifically illiterate and unethical hybridizer" because he has a proposal that he contends is a solution to the issues around the disappearing Ghost Orchid in the Everglades ?
Calling someone names because of a proposal doesn't really advance your cause imo.

[lotis146]

Good lord! What else can I say other than that I'm surprised I continued reading after the third page. In all honesty my comments come more on the matter of how this entire thread has been conducted.

At first I was simply irritated with Epiphyte as his emotions shown more brightly than anything else he was saying. (Epiphyte I use the word brightly in no reference whatsoever to intelligence, rather as an adverb.) It is true that he was overlooking much about introducing new species or hybrids for that matter into an ecosystem they don't naturally occur in. More than anything I saw someone who thought they had a brilliant idea, got shut down and reacted emotionally as opposed to objectively. (Trust me I know, been there done that. I mean, haven't we all?) Much of your posts Epiphyte say the same thing over and over ignoring what is being said to you. Just because a species, or hybrid whatever one wants to reference, survives and/or thrives in an ecosystem, finds fungi and pollinators to tend to it, and becomes the apple of an orchid-lovers eye doesn't mean that that's what's good or even meant to be. You could just as soon say that cancer is good simply because it is a technically natural part of life (DNA replication). Perhaps some people do feel that way...

I understand your theory well enough and I think Orchidsarefun had a great point in the beginning (not that I'm judging any points thereafter). But I can also understand the hostility provided by others. If this same post is plastered all over the web with such aggressive offense but little defense, with the same repetitive and almost childish replies to critics it is understandable that people are going to get agitated. And ultimately offensive to the point of insulting.

And while I think some people have done so I also think that others have referred to Epiphyte's lack of knowledge from a respectful angle and Epiphyte may want to consider what they're saying from a more humble stance. No doubt when any of us lack a certain amount of humility but posit ideas as something short of brilliant and possibly come off as arrogant other people's feathers are going to be ruffled. As has happened here. And it's sad really.

Orchidsarefun, I get your point about what if such an organism were given the "title" of species? Well I think everyone would be okay with it and we would go on merrily and happily discussing our different theories on conservation efforts. But even as Epiphyte discusses one existing on the third deck and the other the first unless they already exist on different decks in the EXACT environment mentioned it doesn't much matter. As you well know, until there is a controlled experiment of this exact nature - even then nature is not a controlled environment and actual conditions will still differ - no one, not the detractors or Epiphyte himself, can say what will happen. Points I do believe you may have already made mention to?

It could be that the moth ditches the "original" ghost orchid for the new introduced hybrid/species and have the exact opposite effect; instead of "strengthening" the endangered species it beats it out. Something so many have been trying to make the point of to Epiphyte. Am I right?

Maybe in Florida the introduced species would prefer the first deck, or whichever deck the original species is on, regardless of whatever deck they sat on before. Or maybe they would hybridize to this super incredible herculean species. Who knows, no one. And I can see the problem is Epiphyte is not humbling himself to this possibility which has occurred more than less when man introduces a non-native into an ecosystem with the PUREST of intentions (such as the Cane toads, and yes many others). I've had a lot of great ideas, they all start somewhere but we shouldn't always run off our emotions. Hell, half the time I WANT to run as fast and hard as the tempo of my music but my body says, "Ha, are you kidding!"

And how come nobody commented on the fact that apparently Ghost Orchids are easy to propagate in the lab? If your goal is to save "THE" Ghost Orchid then slowing or stopping habitat destruction and collection of it and finding more suitable habitats for it if say global warming is the issue is the way to go. Grow IT, release IT. Because if it is possible to grow the actual Ghost Orchid then what's the big deal with trying to save IT by hybridizing it with something else?

However if let's say some genius said the Ghost Orchid has NO CHANCE, NO WAY, NOT POSSIBLE, hope you got one at home, should we try to put something in its place? Or should we shake our heads at our foolish monkey behaviors?

I'm no biologist per se nor a psychologist but from where I stand it does look like this is a matter of someone's feelings getting hurt because they thought their idea was infallible. A reactant arrogance of sorts met by the expected offensive side.

Epiphyte, do carry on your interests in conservation, just be prepared that science is a nasty beast. One should not be so quick to take offense to disagreement without out it, dare I use the example, we'd all believe the world is flat. I think what most people are trying to get at is that you might want to do your background research a bit more on the matter of the introduction of non-native species and even on how to get such an experiment started.

Here's another example to consider: some of the introduced orchid may hybridize with some of the native Ghost Orchid, thereby resulting in this herculean hybrid. However now that this Hercules exists it has the potential to wipe out the native species all together, and while the legacy of the Ghost Orchid HYBRID is now secured what will protect it from over-collecting and habitat destruction? And then what effect will this new hybrid have on other elements of the ecosytems, plants and animals alike?

At the end of the day, most of the time that we humans have messed with nature we've screwed it up. Site as many examples as you'd like as to the good that we've done, but tell me this, how many of those "good deeds" were to make up for "bad deeds" done before?

And there's my long-winded post...are we on page 7 now?

Cheers everybody!

[Andrew]

I've been tossing up whether or not to post on this thread since last time this topic was brought up there was some garbage about orchid-crushing pythons roaming the everglades.

From Carlos' blog:
"In order to help protect the Ghost Orchid...assuming that this is something that we want to do...there are two possible approaches..."

If it's not feasible to maintain a suitable habitat for the ghost orchid, why is preventing their extinction something we should want to do? Could someone please identify the ecological role that D lindenii plays that makes it so crucial to conserve it as a D lindenii-funalis hybrid swarm.

[lotis146]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I've been tossing up whether or not to post on this thread since last time this topic was brought up there was some garbage about orchid-crushing pythons roaming the everglades.

From Carlos' blog:
"In order to help protect the Ghost Orchid...assuming that this is something that we want to do...there are two possible approaches..."

If it's not feasible to maintain a suitable habitat for the ghost orchid, why is preventing their extinction something we should want to do? Could someone please identify the ecological role that D lindenii plays that makes it so crucial to conserve it as a D lindenii-funalis hybrid swarm.

Concise and to the point. Good point. Great question.

And mind everyone else, I do know and understand AND appreciate the importance of biodiversity but at what point do we just admit we don't know what we're doing when it comes to the natural world? Unless we leave it alone...

Thanks Andrew!

[tropterrarium]

I guess I am one of the people who actually can parse that snippet from that scientific article. Please note, that just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal and written by people with PhDs (both assumptions I'm not sure about in this case) does NOT mean that the arguments are sound. I do have a bit of credentials here, bio PhD, 70 papers in peer reviewed journals, editorial and reviewer appointments in a number of places.

So: If something sounds a bit off, then look at what is NOT stated, but implied. You have to start reading between the lines.

Claim: hybrids can preserve biodiversity. Hybrids by definition are mix of two species, so you take 2 make 1. That is reduction in biodiversity.
If you argue that the two original lineages persist with the new hybrid, then that leads to narrowing of niches, and more specialization. More specialized taxa have a greater probability (or Popperian propensity, if you wish) for extinction (plenty of evidence in fossil record). Accordingly, you may get unintentional consequences of reduced biodiversity over evolutionary/geological time scales.

- Time scales: biological change (anagenesis) is relatively slow (punctuated equilibrium not withstanding). Natural splitting of lineages (cladogenesis) also takes time and is slow (millions of years), regardless of whether by traditional allopatric speciation, by parapatric speciation/secondary reinforcement, by founders, or by controversial sympatric speciation. Hybridization, in contrast, is very rapid. Initially you may get hybrid vigor, but often that gets reduced in the long run due to inbreeding due to small starting population size of hybrids (similar to long range dispersal/founder's effect). Once in a while, you get stable hybrid zones (and possibly even lineage sorting, leading back to the original species), but again, rather the exception than the rule.

Botany has some reasonably well inferred cases for hybrid speculation (aka reticulate evolution), but they are few and far in between. The vast majority still is traditional cladogenic evolution.

Our current effect on biodiversity is rather strong, mainly due to habitat reduction. You want to preserve species, preserve land. The vast majority of cases where humans have meddled with species, it has turned out bad, often for unforeseen reasons. Why the ghost orchid hybrids should be different is unclear.

I am very happy that the majority of people on this thread have the good intuitive sense of being skeptical about the referred claims. Please keep those hybrids well under lock and key. Thanks.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Claim: hybrids can preserve biodiversity. Hybrids by definition are mix of two species, so you take 2 make 1. That is reduction in biodiversity.
If you argue that the two original lineages persist with the new hybrid, then that leads to narrowing of niches, and more specialization. More specialized taxa have a greater probability (or Popperian propensity, if you wish) for extinction (plenty of evidence in fossil record). Accordingly, you may get unintentional consequences of reduced biodiversity over evolutionary/geological time scales.

The concept of hybridisation in everything I have read is not to replace 2 species with 1. In the orchid sphere there are literally thousands of examples of primary hybrids created in an effort to make the plants 'generalist' regarding their growing requirements. In fact I have a miltoniopsis species hybrid created in an effort to make the offspring more heat tolerant. Interestingly the seedlings cannot all be considered as heat tolerant and I grow them slightly cooler. The heat tolerant ones would have to be selected for further breeding, perhaps in a backcross - if somebody thought it worthwhile. Hybridisation with Cymbidiums is often cited as a success. You can buy heat tolerant cymbidiums nowadays that didn't exist 50 years ago.
These hybrids by definition have more genetic variation than the parents. Isn't that an example of increasing biodiversity ? Some are sterile but some propagate from seed. I know this from experience.

In epiphyte78's proposal he wants a combination of both species to produce a hybrid that would be pre-adapted ( as it were ) to the changed habitat and would, in theory, not displace the native species because it would have different cultural requirements. This hybrid already has been registered ( in 2001 ) and was created, I am sure, to be 'easier' for people to cultivate. However - as I have seen myself with my own crosses, the intended results are not always what is achieved. That is why I said that his proposal would have to be the subject of a decades-long study. If this species is 'worth keeping', and ultimately reduced in habitat, then at least we know its fairly easy to propagate in the laboratory.
I know of no hybrid that has been successfully reintroduced to the 'wild' - though I did see cattleya hybrids in a Mexico preserve. I was told it was mainly for the tourists as the hybrids were more spectacular blooming than the species. And the money they made from the tourists helped maintain the preserve. Maybe - after a decades-long study, the Ghost Orchid hybrid proposed can have a future as a tourist attraction in its own grow area..........surrounded by a 10 ft electrified fence and enclosed in a dome . Most people wouldn't know the difference. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck ?
Obviously the preferred route is to protect and maintain the species, whatever species. However I am not averse to considering other ideas because that is the only way novel solutions to problems are created.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

You quoted my post in your reply. For your information when I said "if this hybrid" I thought it was self-explanatory that it was the hybrid constantly referred to in this thread - and by me specifically in the post you quote. If you are going to use quotes then understand the context. You cannot change the context and expect me to understand you are referring to something else, completely unrelated to what I said.
So that I understand - you are saying that epiphyte is a "scientifically illiterate and unethical hybridizer" because he has a proposal that he contends is a solution to the issues around the disappearing Ghost Orchid in the Everglades ?
Calling someone names because of a proposal doesn't really advance your cause imo.

If I don't get your context its because you didn't make it clear!! Your quote was self explanatory because as it was written, my response works just fine.

And yes, your comprehension of Epiphytes attempt at a solution (not an actual solution) is correct. His gross misunderstanding of basic biological concepts renders him scientifically illiterate (uneducated, misinformed, ignorant, etc.; you can insert any number of words here) and his desire to implement illegal and potentially damaging practices to the Everglades renders him unethical. Calling someone names and pointing out traits are two different things. I stand by my observations regarding the characteristics that he has demonstrated in this and other threads.