A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Hummingbirds breed somewhere ? At the moment its only the ruby-throated hummingbird - thats been documented in IL.
Illinois Hummingbirds -
Other examples , some protected some unregulated.
Ferrets - Established Species of Non-native Mammals in California - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

The problem with making general statements is that they are easily discounted.

Uh, to answer your question, yes, Ruby Throated Hummingbirds do breed somewhere. I would expect that the presence of more than one would make that self evident. Non sequiturs like this are why I'm in your debt and likely to remain so.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Uh, to answer your question, yes, Ruby Throated Hummingbirds do breed somewhere. I would expect that the presence of more than one would make that self evident. Non sequiturs like this are why I'm in your debt and likely to remain so.

If the ruby-throated hummingbird establishes itself and breeds in an area that it wasn't in before, doesn't that make it a non-native species to that area ? Effectively an invasive species ? The analogy cannot be simpler.
I notice you don't respond to the list of all the non-native species in California.

[epiphyte78]

orchidsarefun, I haven't connected with either the Fairchild Botanic Garden or Selby Botanical Garden...yet. It's kind of hard to tell from their website but Selby is the premier institute for epiphyte research. Well, at least they used to be.

I definitely plan on contacting them but herclivation isn't the only topic that I'd like to share with them and get their thoughts on. I'd prefer to share the topics all at once, given that they are all closely related, but I still need to do a bit more work on the other topics. And I only have so much time.

Regarding offline vs online. I'm not at all bothered by less than constructive comments. I'd love it if everybody was as thoughtful and open-minded as yourself but that's just not how it happens sometimes. Plus, if nothing else, an unconstructive comment bumps the thread and exposes it to more people. My only concern is if unconstructive comments result in the thread being locked. It's the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It doesn't just block unconstructive comments...it also blocks constructive comments.

If this thread had been locked after the first unconstructive comment...then we wouldn't be able to benefit from all the subsequent constructive comments. My preference is for the moderator to simply block unconstructive individuals from the thread rather than block everybody from the thread. To WhiteRabbit's credit, I think that a previous moderator, not going to mention any names, would have locked this thread long ago.

I posted a link to my blog entry on facebook and received the following comment...

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. - Amey Bhide

As an aside...I'm always a bit hesistant commenting on facebook because I'm never sure if my non-plant friends are going to be bombarred with plant related notifications as a result of my plant related activity. I'm probably sure I could tweak my settings but it's not worth the effort to figure out.

Bhide's comment is interesting because clearly he acknowledges that some variation is good...but unfortunately, he doesn't quite explain why more variation would be a bad thing. Where does he draw the line and why does he draw it there?

In other words, he doesn't point out the flaw in Sander's analysis...

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

If a Dendrophylax hybrid was too different...then it wouldn't be adapted to D. lindenii's habitat. At worst, it wouldn't be adapted to any habitat in Florida. And at best, the hybrid would be adapted to orchards and/or cleared sites in Florida...of which there are more than enough.

If two species are way too different, then crossing them wouldn't even be possible. Like trying to cross a Cattleya and an Oncidium. If they are too different, then you can cross them but their progeny would be sterile. Like crossing a horse and a donkey produces a sterile mule. If they are not too different then their progeny would be fertile...

We may point to the case of Cattleya skinneri, which has all the earmarks of a bee flower, and C. aurantiaca, which seems to be a hummingbird flower. While we do not know which agent is responsible, there is no doubt that some one organism still effectively pollinates both species, even if rarely, for they hybridize in southern Mexico and Guatemala to produce C. x guatemalensis. Quite a hybrid swarm occurs, and some elements of the complex have been named as species (C. deckeri, C. pachecoi). - Robert L. Dressler, The Orchids

So people aren't concerned with scenarios where the two species are way too different, nor are they concerned with scenarios where the two species are too different (except for one person)...they are concerned with scenarios where the two species are not too different. In other words, they are concerned with scenarios in which the two species are kinda similar. Except, they aren't concerned with scenarios where the hybridizer is some unknown organism...as with C. skinneri and aurantiaca...they are concerned with scenarios where the hybridizer is human.

Speaking of invasive species, pollinators, skinneri and Florida...

This supports, in part, the idea that pollination limitation may be a barrier to orchid naturalization. The recent naturalization of two tropical bees in southern Florida, an orchid bee (Pemberton & Wheeler 2006), and an oil collecting bee (Pemberton & Liu 2008), may reduce this pollinator limitation and both promote some already naturalized orchids and facilitate the naturalization of some ornamental orchids. The orchid bee, Euglossa viridissima Friese, visits many different ornamental orchids (Pemberton 2007a), and is pollinating and causing considerable fruit set in Guarianthe skinneri (Bateman) Dressler & W.E. Higgins (Pemberton 2007b). The oil-collecting bee, Centris nitida Smith, is pollinating and inducing fruit set in the ornamental Oncidium sphacelatum Lindl. (Pemberton, in press), and is the only known pollinator of the invasive cowhorn orchid, Cyrtopodium polyphyllum (Vell.) Pabst ex F. Barrios, (Liu and Pemberton, unpubl. Data). It is doubtful that either of these naturalized bees visits the flowers of Eulophia graminea because they are quite unlike the flowers used by them. - Pemberton et al. An Asian orchid, Eulophia graminea (Orchidaceae: Cymbidieae), Naturalizes in Florida

[Subrosa]

You're laboring under the illusion that a migratory species is native to one place.

[lotis146]

First, I don't know that migratory birds are necessarily considered native or non-native. I've certainly never heard of them being referred to as invasive. I've spent a fair amount of time in Michigan and Illinois and have seen the Ruby-throated my entire life.

Orchidsarefun again I understand your points with respect to "hearing out" even audacious ideas. However I now feel the need to speak up a little more for a second because while this thread has included some great information no doubt it's been incredibly frustrating on all fronts.

Of course the anger flurrying around just clouds the stuff that matters. At the same time so does Epiphyte's one-sided behavior. First off, I love Hummingbirds (I spent a couple weeks in Ecuador volunteering on a research project regarding them) but his injecting that after all the brash AND well thought out comments that came before this comment frustrated me. It shows his disregard for what people are really saying. It's this sort of behavior that I believe has upset people.

While Epiphyte insists that other people address his comments and explain their own including citing sources I've been noticing that he doesn't do much to actually ADDRESS the scientific points that people have made. Sure he's replied to the emotional ones but why not people's concerns for introducing a hybrid? Why is he constantly only pointing out what's wrong with other people's comments? Sure he says he knows he's infallible but then he won't turn around and show he's thought this through by saying well I can see where... If you believe you're infallible then please tell us what problems you do see in your current theory? Even the quote he posted from Facebook - a great great point and idea - he said that person was essentially wrong for not addressing more variation, or what have you. When I think their idea was one of the best. I stand by my belief that Epiphyte is stuck on his own idea and not open to other ideas concerning what would really help this endangered species. Gathering and breeding members of the same species from different areas would certainly increase the gene pool, an important aspect of all species conservation.

In addition he keeps going off into the woods so to speak and saying things about how if a species can survive in the existing habitat then doesn't that mean it should be, if a pollinator takes to it then doesn't that mean it should be there? Forgive my unintelligent lingo but I'm annoyed. Starlings are kicking a** literally and figuratively. There are so many House Sparrows I don't think most people even know they're invasive. Both of these species compete with Eastern Bluebirds, often costing the latter species their nest sites and thus their ability to reproduce and survive. Does this mean we should say to hell with the Bluebird and put all our votes in for the Sparrows and Starlings?

Better yet, we humans are conquering everything we touch. Does that mean we should be? Does that mean we should put our hands on every inch of this earth? Probably not. If Britney Spears wins an award for best artist of the year does that mean she really is? I digress...

Lastly, I take incredible offense to the nerve Epiphyte has in saying that if the people here really care about the conservation of D. lindenii then they should create a blog, otherwise they don't really care. I beg your pardon, but TALKING (ie running your mouth) does not mean you care. If you want to show your concern then get your butt on the ground or in the lab and do work. I notice when Orchidsarefun says connect with The Million Orchid Project Epiphyte has an excuse for "not yet". And the idea of taking this idea "offline" for a potentially more constructive discussion was also rejected. With those facts in mind I am of the mind that this is more about Epiphyte's love of his idea and attention for his blog. If not then why is his theory not evolving as he learns some of its potholes? Why does he only keep directing us over and over - which is annoying - to the same original BLOG post?

Part of a scientific discussion is not only putting forth your own ideas but also supporting them. Your concern for your subject should speak for itself, in other words you should have done your research and been as best prepared as you can for the opposition, which means including how your theory could overcome these issues before your opponents can even speak. I think that Epiphyte, while perhaps initially deserving of some consideration, has made enemies by ignoring facts, discussions, and legitimate opposition people have put out there. He has repeatedly shot back insisting that everyone else prove themselves while he does not. Just because you can cite some papers that supposedly support your theory doesn't mean all that much. (Some scientists say they can prove Global Warming doesn't exist either. And if you watch Animal Planet you'll find that people can prove Bigfoot exists...). You also have to be able to cite opposing theories and how yours at least has the chance to prove it wrong. (Repetitive I know...) Please address the actual points people have made instead of just excusing yourself away saying you need to learn more and yes you know you're flawed like we all are. Now you've been educated a bit more, what say you with this new info in hand? Please move the discussion you started forward with new arguments.

I just don't appreciate the arrogance shown when people run their mouths about things they prove they need to learn more about but EXPECT everyone else to prove themselves. I think we all waited for Epiphyte's response to the many, many replies given by some clearly knowing individuals and yet he insults this thread by saying that Hummingbirds should be introduced everywhere.

See my point?

[orchidsarefun]

this is Epiphytes quote regarding hummingbirds
"If I had to pick one introduction that could potentially have the greatest positive impact on biodiversity...then I think that I'd have to go with introducing hummingbirds to the rest of the world. Because I'm pretty sure that we all benefit when there's more, rather than less, pollinators. But I could be wrong. And to be clear, in no way shape or form am I advocating or supporting the illegal introduction of any plant or animal. I guess it's impossible for me to say that enough."

I don't think that is controversial at all. Its his OPINION. One can have a chicken or egg argument regarding it ( does a food source have to be present first ? ). If hummingbird species, or anything else ( see California list. See Burro ), are establishing themselves ( and breeding ) because of an additional food source or habitat what does that make the 'new' food source and all those co-dependent ? The Burro is deemed 'protected' in California but is not a natural 'species' by any definition. These new species have adapted, whether triggered by man ( Burro ) or not. I think the context of the hummingbird reference was that pollinators of the PROPOSED new hybrid MAY appear.

The crux of many of the postings seem to be 'upset' over epiphyte78 not justifying/warranting/detailing his proposal sufficiently IN YOUR OWN OPINION. Eventually everything leads back to that. Well, guess what. I and others have made points that are not answered either. Like the classification of species made hundreds of years ago that even now are resulting in reclassifications - from species to hybrids, vice-versa and so on. Certain intergenerics are also being given their own genus as a result of orchid breeding. I think Andrew's question too is important - though personally a leafless orchid may be worth preserving, but in the wild where habitat degradation is inevitable over time? hmmm....I don't know.
Science isn't infallible. Thinking so has given us many of the most impactful man-made disasters in History. Which isn't to say that Science concepts are 'wrong'. I am saying that, and I think ovanoshio alluded to this as well - what is accepted Science fact today, may be BS tomorrow. Science itself has a credibility problem, yes I know its a general statement - for example there is no other explanation for the number of people who don't believe in any type of evolution, despite what Scientists say, find or prove. Or the anti-vaccinations crowd. Or the anti GMO crowd, or climate change......and so on.

I have a healthy scepticism myself, but limited by common-sense. I can agree to disagree with someone when an impasse is reached. epiphyte says that comments don't affect him......the more publicity is better than no publicity example.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

If the ruby-throated hummingbird establishes itself and breeds in an area that it wasn't in before, doesn't that make it a non-native species to that area ? Effectively an invasive species ? The analogy cannot be simpler.
I notice you don't respond to the list of all the non-native species in California.

the definition of invasive species is here
Invasive Species: About NISIC - What is an Invasive Species?
I don't think anyone would consider a hummingbird in the context of 2), so to clarify my intent: I don't know however if any of these new species adapt to the native food source, potentially displacing the 'natives'. Looking at it another way - are a lot of hummingbirds expanding their range because they are being displaced ?
I don't want to digress from the thread discussion, but I thought I would just state the above.

[Subrosa]

Migratory birds are considered migratory

[WhiteRabbit]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Fyi folks, hummingbirds are migratory. They really aren't native to anywhere. They are commonly found in certain regions during certain times of the year. The nature of long migrations lends itself to the participating species popping up in areas they may not be commonly seen in.

FWIW - not all hummingbirds are migratory. Anna's is a resident species in the far west US, tho their range is expanding.
I don't think that migratory birds would be considered to be non-native in their historical breeding regions.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by WhiteRabbit

FWIW - not all hummingbirds are migratory. Anna's is a resident species in the far west US, tho their range is expanding.
I don't think that migratory birds would be considered to be non-native in their historical breeding regions.

I over generalized, but the specific species under discussion is indeed migratory, and living on the east coast I am only familiar with this species. Thanks for the info on other hummers.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

The number of invasive species not created by human introduction, either intentionally or otherwise is small indeed. None come to mind. Species increasing their native ranges through exploitation of new habitats contiguous to their existing range are not invasive, just successful. Case in point the coyote. As a kid growing up in the 60s coyotes were just background in western movies. Then in the late 70s they were starting to turn up in western PA. By the mid/late 80s the first ones were found in suburban Philadelphia. But for all their conquest, they're not invasive, and neither is a Ruby Throated Hummingbird in any part of IL.

[orchidsarefun]

Coyotes are not invasive in the definition of the word and as such they are a good example of a species that has adapted to human habitation ( changed environment ) and of a species displacing another. Mountain lions and wolves were extirpated and the coyote has filled that gap.

Wildlife Directory: Coyote — Living with Wildlife — University of Illinois Extension

However the coyote can and has hybridised with the Red Wolf and has produced fertile offspring. Only time will tell if this hybrid predominates but this hybrid is another example of unintended consequences and one can argue whether or not this has occurred as a result of man-made intervention. Who or what killed off mountain lions and wolves ? Is the presence of this hybrid a good or a bad thing ? Aren't the real-life results of this biology example something akin to what epiphyte is proposing ? I can see similarities, unforeseen or not.

Coyote Hybrids