Poll: Collecting Orchids From the Wild

[kmarch]

I would be interested in hearing members' opinions on whether or not you think it is ok for orchid species to be collected from the wild and if you think it is appropriate to have "jungle collected" plants in our collections.

There are many sensitive issues of conservation, collection, and commerce here and members will likely have strong opinions on the matters at hand. Therefore it is important that we be tactful and diplomatic in our posts and replies.

I'm looking forward to the discussion.

[Anton]

It IS a sensitive topic Kevin.

There are many species of Austrlian natives as you know, many terrestrial, and are not endangered.

My personal thoughts are definately NO collecting for commercial enterprises, but if a species is not endangered, then a few specimens (very few) should be able to be collected from licenced growers, similar to what happens with native parrots here in Australia.

This means that you could be subjected to spot checks to make sure you are conforming to the rules and regs and that your records are up to date.

Obviously there should be strict guidelines covering this, maybe the licence is offered to registered orchid clubs rather than individuals.

This subject is a veritable minefield, those for, and those against.

Good idea for a poll Kevin.

On my recent trip to Kangaroo Island I saw thousands of natives of the same species all over the island, 2 or 3 individual plants won't decimate the species, plus most of these wouldn't be recognised as anything but weeds by the untrained eye, so I can't see a rush to get them, therefore preserving the species.

I'll probably be shot down in flames here, but this is my opinion for what it is worth.

[tom499]

I am quite surprised by the outcome of the poll already, 5 out of 6 saying maybe.

For me the issue here, like with many environmental problems, is the numbers involved.

A plant could be common as grass in certain areas, but if theres a demand for it and people could collect them, it would surely be wiped out within a year.

Lets not forget when orchids were first being discovered, people were just ripping them up because there was a demand for them.

Most orchids are surely in commercial reach anyway, having long been propagated from wild ones, I dont see why we should need to pick more.

And if some orchids are covering landscapes then i think its great and they should be photographed and enjoyed, but left in their habitat.

I know as myself a collector of orchids fall into this trap, but i feel humans can be very greedy with such natural beauty, want to have it for ourselves and spend alot of money trying to recreate the environments in our own homes. This on the whole is fine, but I still believe we should not take any risks to ruin the natural habitats where orchids really do look their best.

I just dont think you can trust everyone to just take a few for their personal collection, and that they will be sold off and previously common species will become endangered.

UK orchids are surely a sign of that, where it takes physical barriers to stop people collecting previously common orchids, which are now only found in numbers in a few places.

[Anton]

Tom as I mentioned, it should be regulated and hefty fines for those that faulter. I have spent many hours photographing natives and I can categorically state have NOT take even one plant, boy, tempting though, but I DO have a moral side, although some may question that.

That's a reason I suggested Orchid Societies have the "licence" as I know in my Society there is a very strong climate of conservation. Some in our group do have permission from the Government to rescue threatened species and these are cultivated and shared within the Society with funds from the sales going towards conservation projects.

Wholesale pilfering should be stopped at all costs.

[Tobi]

Anton & Tom,
I pretty much agree with what you said. My concern is how to better monitor illegal cultivation of them in poorer countries where border travel
is not as stringent. I know that thousands of illegally cultivated wild orchids from Laos and Cambodia are brought into Thailand across mountain passes
that are not guarded. If people, especially those that have no money and
are barely able to make a living for themselves and their familes, can find
ways to collect orchids from the wild and sell them illegally, they will do so
at any cost.

[jerrymeola]

there is a belief that placing a plant or animal on the CITES endangered species list is a quarantee that it WILL

[kmarch]

For clarification, CITES is not protection regulation but rather commerce regulation. It does nothing to protect orchid in their habitats, the habitats themselves, or the collection of plants from the wild. It only regulates the movement of the plants across the borders of countries that have signed onto the treaty.

[Vivienne]

WOW - this is a great topic and I'm eager to see how every one feels about it. I do hope that we can all respect each others opinions.

My opinion is that wild orchids should stay wild. I originally voted NO but perhaps it should have been MAYBE. I would like to think that if institutions were able to collect wild orchids for identification and preservation that it would be okay; but in all reality, I do not feel that that is how it would be maintained. Greed is a powerful thing.

Originally Posted by Anton

That's a reason I suggested Orchid Societies have the "licence" as I know in my Society there is a very strong climate of conservation. Some in our group do have permission from the Government to rescue threatened species and these are cultivated and shared within the Society with funds from the sales going towards conservation projects.

This is a good idea. But it is up to us - the collectors and hobbyist - to be responsible with our purchases. If we are willing to spend the big bucks for a 'rare' orchid, then the pilfering of nature will continue.

[janet_a]

i'm with anton; but i also see tobi's point. i don't think your average joe out for a walk in the woods should collect anything; i'd prefer to see it regulated by the government. that said however, there are an awful lot of imbecilic incompetant governments out there, so it's a problem.

[prisana]

I agree with most of you. I don't think there's any way to work around greed. Too many people possess that , it's the ugly truth. The fines, the imprisonment , even death itself won't stop them from getting what they want. There are too many people involved and the poorest and most powerless usually are the ones paying the price. That, of course doesn't solve anything.

I will not buy anything rare or endangered..plants or animals. I don't need to feed my ego. I rather view them in their own habitat than own them in my habitat.

It's not okay to pick wild orchids, however , if the wild habitat is threatened , I believe picking them is the best conservation, but only if done by a certified group of people with expertise in caring for them. The rest should be protected in the same manner as all the other things are protected..but that's the hard part.

[tizzycat]

Greed, Lust, (call it what you will) is the enemy here.

I think that "licenced" collection should be permitted but only for the the purpose of preservation where a species is truly in danger of becoming extinct or being destroyed.

Some sort of botanical inspectorate should be responsible for monitoring what people are growing/selling/moving/destroying.

Surely native plants are equally as important as animals (which, incidentally, I also love).

[tom499]

Some vey valid points made there, and i agree that as long as there are people who will pay for illegal plants, people will pick them.

So in a way, maybe it would be better to have institutions that collect a few wild plants and then let them be mass propagated by growers and sold that way. If the rare plants can be made available legally then maybe less people would buy wild ones.

I said no believing most orchids are already available legally, so there is no excuse to pick wild ones.

[janet_a]

Originally Posted by tom499

So in a way, maybe it would be better to have institutions that collect a few wild plants and then let them be mass propagated by growers and sold that way. If the rare plants can be made available legally then maybe less people would buy wild ones.

yeah, this would be the ideal situation.

[PhalPal]

Prisana I could not have stated it better; I whole heartly agree with your stance. At first glance I was going to vote absolutely NO. Then with MAYBE came the qualifier of "if the environment was threatened" and I voted for MAYBE. And then here we go - who decides when an area is threatened, who will collect these orchids, and how will they be handled after saving them?? If there were a world wide ban on selling and purchasing such orchids it MAY help to save endangered species.

As Prisana so eloquently stated above, I would much rather see a plant or animal in the wild than stroke my own ego at their cost. Unfortunately, like most crime, it only takes 1% of the population to be criminals to ruin it for the rest of us who are honest.

[brookn]

My vote is maybe, but only in special circumstances, with proper permission. If someone is going to raze the land they are on, someone should be allowed to step in. I saw an add on ebay a couple of months ago touting wild lady slippers. When I inquired about them, the guy replied that they were collecting them from the forest, I must say I was furious. I reported to ebay, but they will not give you any info on the measures they take against these people.

[palito]

There are places that were plucked of the flashier orchids in the interest of "conservation", and now those plants are very rare to see...

With that said, I'd support efforts to fund the local botanical gardens in each country to collect, document and preserve their own species including those that have no horticultural value (the vast majority of orchids), that no commercial growers would be ever interested in breeding.

[19419n]

my Phal. aphrodite subsp. formosana 'Da Wu Mountain' is a stem prop from a jungle grown plant. this species is now considered extinct from the wild. i paid dearly for this plant not to brag or to show but to help preserve this. it now has a keikei growing on it which will be given to a grower in MO. who i know will do a great job with it. most of my phal species are jungle collected and i will be recieving a gigantea tomorrow from the jungle as well now none of these are for bragging rights or to be entered into any show. but to help maintain some of the true species before they dissapear for good. maybe someday my grandkids might enjoy growing them if not they will be donated to the Phipps conservatory in pittsburgh to live a happy and pampered life

[tom499]

There extinct because peope are takng them illegally. I'm afraid 19419n your supporting the illegal trade of wild orchids Whatever you do will the plant is of no real concern, your giving people a reason to go and take them from the wild, i beg you to discontinue buying such plants as your causing their dimise in the wild.

[19419n]

all of my plants have been legally obtained

[mdomingz]

Coming from a tropical central american country, it is for me almost a daily thing to see people on the street selling wild collected plants. I do have to say, i'm fortunate i haven't seen orchids on this kind of trade. There are mostly bromeliads or heliconias and birds of paradise, the only orchids i've seen are peristerias elatas (Panama's national flower). The problem is there is a huge problem of destruction of rainforest in every tropical country that (keeping it real) is extremely hard to control by regular citizens. Besides, there is also global warming (I'm starting to sound like Bono) which is really starting to collect it's toll on species of animals and plants. Some of them are desappearing without any direct human intervention.

My opinion in this whole thing is, if you don't know what you are collecting from the wild, DONT DO IT!, what's the point of taking something out of nature to bring it home to have it die on you in a couple of weeks. There are some institutions, call them nurseries, colleges, government conservation authorities and some other resources that could be contacted in the case that some specific species should be gathered and conserved. Believe me, there are lots of "idealistic" students and researchers doing that job right now. I think it was Anton that posted a video on a park in australia where they were trying to recreate natural habitats out in open spaces. That is a great idea for conservation and the future. That way plants can be eventually re introduced to their enviroment eventually.

Besides, about this whole point of collecting, let's say there are massive numbers of a certain plant in a certain area. Even if one single person takes one "because there are infinate more", what if thounsands of people have the same opinion? Do any remember what happened to those beautiful huge bright orange phragmideums discovered in Peru...GONE!

What would happen if every single person visitting took a rock out of China's great wall or Keops pyramid?

manuel
panama

[Anton]

19419n does bring up a point which is why I originally said I would like the chance "legally" to get 2 or 3 individual plants from the wild in an area in which they are abundant to get a pure strain.

Humans have stuffed up species by crossing them for experimentation, resulting in designer orchids similar to this glut of designer dogs which is happeneing world wide at present, and have gone away from how they grew and looked in the wild.

I too am looking at adding more species to my collection and starting by getting a nurse from work to bring back 6 flasks of species from the Bali Orchid Gardens when she goes there next month.

it is OK to have crossed plants, but I feel that we should also be getting back to "raw" stock for strength of species, this is something we did when I was bird breeding, otherwise you weaken the species, whatever it is.

As 19419n said, true species are becoming a dieing breed, literally.

My 2 petals worth.

[PhalPal]

Very valid observations Manuel. I live near a coastline that has protected tide pools. It is a $1,000 fine if you are caught taking any of the tide pool creatures or rocks from the area. I am just sickened to see tourists taking their 'souvenirs' from the tide pools and very often say something to the parents, warning them of the fine. The answer invariably is "It's only one". They don't stop to think that Southern California has millions of tourists each year and the area would be depleted of what people come to see if each family took "just one" starfish, sea urchin, etc.

[Fabolusus]

This is one of those paradoxical debates that can go around and around with no concrete resolution. I have to admit that I can't say that I would completely ban wild collection.

If you trace any orchid's pedigree back to the beginning, at some point there had to have been some sort of "jungle collected" plant. So you could say that responsible collecting, done for the enrichment and strengthening of the currently available orchid gene pool is beneficial in that it preserves that orchid, in the same way that a zoo housing an endangered animal protects that species from oblivion.

However, as the demand for rare and exotic orchids is high, so is the amount of unscrupulous people who would raze an entire forest just to find the next Paph sanderianum or Phrag kovachii. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.

As collectors of orchids, are we stewards of the environment and protectors of a complex form of life? Or are we fueling an industry that promotes the destruction of sensitive ecosystems by removing a part of them?

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Fabolusus

As collectors of orchids, are we stewards of the environment and protectors of a complex form of life? Or are we fueling an industry that promotes the destruction of sensitive ecosystems by removing a part of them?

I have heard one or 2 folks over the eyars say that for this reason they do not grow species, only hybrids.

[tom499]

I just find it hard to believe most of these species arent already in collections over the world, and cant be propagated (paphs. phrags would need seeding) and then they could make these species legally available.

removing the plants from the wild because there becoming exinct just sounds totally ironic.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by tom499

removing the plants from the wild because there becoming exinct just sounds totally ironic.

It does sound like an odd logic but if I'm not mistaken there are some instances in animals where it has helped. I'm sure I've herad that somewhere....unfortunately i can't back it up with hard data, so.....

[eldone]

Years ago when I was a kid I knew of a spot in the woods that had about 20 wild pink lady slippers. I was sick when that area was "developed" and all of the lady slippers were bulldozed out.

I believe that it could be tightly regulated to just the areas that are being
"developed" which will help control the amount taken from the wild. I recognize that this would not help much in some countries. In these cases there probably is not much that can be done other than policing ourselves.

[tom499]

I agree, it can help animals, such would probably be pandas and tigers, which are becoming rare, but it does not make up for the wild ones. its probably worse with animals as recreating an artificial habitat is alot harder, and the animals rarely feel as at home and reproduce so well as in the wild.

I guess alot of it leads to the damage and destruction of the environments, but i think thats another poll

[tom499]

just read your post eldone, you must have posted while i was

That makes me angry for another point. Us developed countries seem to demolish our own wildlife with little problem which helped to build our "great" nations. Europe was just forest before we destroyed it all to build acres of farmland, killing off many species. But developing countries like Brazil and China get globally shot down as soon as they cut down a tree, doing what we did for 100s of years.

On one side i think countries should be allowed to exploit their lands resources as long as they swear to protect some of it, and find ways of making money by keeping their environment natural.

Its all too complicated for me

[mdomingz]

This is actually the first topic in the forum that have kept me thinking long after turning the computer off. Vivienne mentioned a powerful key element in all these variables: Greed, call it for illegal traders, governments, developers and lots of others. Unfortunately a plant doesn't seem to be a big thing for someone who owns a piece of land and wants to build a 50 million dollars structure to make money out of it. Actually, who can blame him, I'm pretty sure most of us would do that at a certain point. Well, thank goodness we know what conservation is, if not we wouldn't be in this forum! The not so good thing is that efforts made by governments and developers by creating small green areas within or around their proyects, don't really help on a larger scale. We can't stop development and as Tom499 said, there are countries that almost lost all their wild lands to progress. Still, our not so developed countries have lots of "national parks" with pseudoprotected areas. (Pseudoprotected: they are supposed to be protected but there is no budget to hire people to actually enforce the regulations, so they are just protected by a paragraph in a paper and not in the field).

If action is taken, which i'm sure it will eventually happen; in asia, africa, america, europe or australia, i can say first, it's going to happen when it's almost on the brink of disaster (which is when people actually pay attention to whats going on) and second I think we're not going to see the results, since we are going to be the ones making somewhat of the change. It's going to be two or more generations after.

manuel
panama

[Kevin Western]

Originally Posted by kmarch

I would be interested in hearing members' opinions on whether or not you think it is ok for orchid species to be collected from the wild and if you think it is appropriate to have "jungle collected" plants in our collections.

There are many sensitive issues of conservation, collection, and commerce here and members will likely have strong opinions on the matters at hand. Therefore it is important that we be tactful and diplomatic in our posts and replies.

I'm looking forward to the discussion.

From personal experience I have seen what happens in all options.
I have seen a situation where a Pterostylis species was known from just the one location. Specimens were legally taken to provide scientific botanical specimens and for botannical drawings. Specimens were also illegally taken for hobbyist collections. The numbers were quite improperly reduced by removal for hobbyist collections but there were still quite some plants left. Severe bushfires close together in 2 seasons appear to have wiped them out and to date no-one has admitted to finding any other colonies so possibly there are no other colonies. Luckily the botannical artist kept and maintained some tuber material and sent some to another grower so a capsule eventually came to me and the seedlings we generated were quite robust and cultivation was easy. We should eventually be able to generate enough seedlings and tubers to assure the on-going existence of the species. Though the fires actually wiped the colony out, I suspect that collecting would have eventually produced the same outcome. This case indicates that there is a place for captive collections of endangered species but illegal collection is a no no. By captive collections I mean both deflasked and thus in pot culture and in flask, grown on to maturity and aseptically pollinated to maintain permanent flask cultures until they eventually can be artificially maintained or legally returned to the wild.
A further example of this relates to a Victorian Diuris species that was once present over many square killometers and in great abundance until suburbia took over the habitat. Eventually the species was down to a few wild plants plus some that had been collected and maintained for years by a concerned hobbyist whilst they were threatened but still remnant in several locations.
From these few plants a breeding program ws started and over 4,500 seedlings were generated in flask. They were deflasked using competent hobbyists and ultimately a significant number of them were returned to safe wilderness locations where a couple of years ago a total of about 700 plants were going to flower. I argue that this was an act of real conservation [ It's jut a pity that so many had to be wiped out before we humans took pity on them ] The guy who illegally collected plants back long ago was a criminal at the time but eventually became a hero when his collected material was the ultimate souce of the wider gene pool.
There have been cases where at least populations of very rare species were left to disappear whilst those in a position to do something actually procarstinated long enough for the plants to disappear entirely. In cases like this it's hard to argue that we would have been successful by intervening at any point in time but I would ague that it may well have been better to actively pollinate plants, protect them from predation, collect the seed and sow, grow and maintain them in flask until by trial and error we could find how to maintain and artificial population and have a view to eventually find a safe wilderness location for them to survive in.
I have a residential block in the Mt Lofty Ranges near Adelaide in South Australia. It was cleared back in 1963 and then virtually left untouched until we purchased it in about 1995. My wife and I reasoned that since e few remnants of native flora were still there, we could expect the orchids to be there or to stage a come back if we optimised conditions for them. The joke was that there were orchids on each of the other nearby blocks but apparently none on ours.
After a couple of years we noticed some Thelymitras. They could have come in as seed from across the road or they may just have escaped our notice. Soon there were 3 species but no Diuris and there were many diuris across the raod and our soil profile was the same as over the road so when neighbours started to buldoze for pathways, driveways etc, I checked the earthworks, brought the tubers that I managed to find back to my block and planted them there - 37 tubers in all. WOW - from 37 tubers, most flowered the next season and by 2006 there were over 130 flowering plants - and they had arisen from seed. Indeed, ever since we have noted a slow stream of seed must be reaching us as more seedlings and the odd new species are turning up in flower in that section each year.
Broadly then, I consider we should almost never take specimens from the wild unless we are absolutely [ and I do mean absolutely ] certain that their fate is more uncertain if they are left alone than if we take them as in South Australia we have only terrestrials and some of them quite literally defy even the most competent hobbyists attempts to maintain them artificially - though I reckon we do know how to successfully maintain them now.
I recon that what I did in that I took tubers from earthworks where they would have had less than 1% chance of survival and relocated them not more than 120metres away is not a crime, especially given that they are florishing all on their lonesomes. The real problem comes later though in that since I am not immortal, my property will be sold at some point in time and the chance that the new owners will allow that wildernes section of land to remain in its current state is something that I may have little control over.
In short I believe that matters pertaining to conservation are truly the province of the State Government and that only under rare and exceptional circumstances should anyone else actually take plant material and even then only when they are sure they KNOW that the material is certain to survive. I don't believe we are really in a position to say that any safe, abundant, wild orchid collection is suitable for unsupervised removal of plants. From my experience that is a dangerous mind-set for some hobbyists to adopt. I reckon we have to be very law-abiding. Conversely if you do know of a declining population that seems to be on its way out and if officialdom will do nothing then I believe a couple of the plants should be self pollinated and attempts should be made to raise them in a laboratory and to ultimately formulate a plan to produce a captive population and to return some to the wild direct from flask. Again this is hairy stuff but we have seen it lead to true conservation.

[Anton]

Kevin has been doing this for over 30 years and is respected for his work here in Oz and has brought up good points for both arguments.

He is someone who leads by example, I know, I have been to his place and seen first hand what he is talking about.

Well put Kevin.

[gore42]

I think that it's not only acceptable in some circumstances to collect wild orchids, but it's irresponsible not to do so. I find it disgusting that in many countries, it is actually illegal to collect plants that are about to be bulldozed or burned to make way for land development.

That said, 99% of the time, it is morally reprehensible to collect wild orchids. It drives me crazy to hear about the hikers around here who dig up Cypripediums to plant in their yards at home. I've seen photos taken by orchid collectors in China and south America who have totally destroyed populations of Paphs and Phrags for profit. You've probably all heard that when Paph. vietnamense was discovered, it was sold to Taiwanese importers by the Kilogram... and those that the natives couldn't sell were fed to their pigs. This type of irresponsible collecting is unforgivable.

However, I recall a chapter in the book "Orchid Fever" about a man in Wisconsin or Michigan (don't remember the Northern state atm ) who does Cyp rescue. When the Orchid Highway was being widened or moved or some such thing, he only had a day or two to legally collect all of the plants along some huge stretch of highway.... and he was only allowed to collect on one side of the road, if I'm not mistaken. And Cyps (at least in that area) are not especially rare... like many of the populations of Paphs in Asia.

It makes a lot of sense to me to allow a certain number of plants to be collected each year (or at least seed pods), and in ANY case when the land is about to be developed and the orchids destroyed. Naturally, the major problem is then keeping track of the plants that have been legally collected vs. illegally collected plants. However, the USFW in the USA seems to do a pretty good job with it, keeping track of plants that are seized and given to rescue centers... I'm sure that there is a reasonable way to do it in any nation. Collected plants could then be grown and divided and bred, and the divisions and seedlings could be sold to support the rescue operation.

Of course, this is done in many parts of Asia. I've been lucky enough to buy divisions of wild collected plants (legal under CITES, division is a means of artificial propagation) to add to my collection. The importance of genetic variation cannot be over-emphasized. Keep in mind that many Paph species have been bred (at least in the US) from only a few plants that were collected nearly a century ago... sometimes longer. Paph delenatii, for example... most of the plants in cultivation were bred from just a handful of French collected plants dating back to the first world war. With this kind of gene pool, the entire population of captive plants is at risk of being wiped out by a disease or other pest, since the variation in the population that would allow some plants to be resistant simply isn't present. Paph. lawrenceanum is another example of this type of breeding.

Just as important, in my mind, is that fact that most breeders are breeding for award quality. This means that the interesting variations in flower forms are typically bred out (in favor of size, depth of color, and awardable form)... so that plants that are 3rd or 4th generation are not really like their wild ancestors.

One of the reasons that I started collecting orchids in the first place is that I LOVE all of the different types of orchids there are... I like the different colors, different shapes, the different sizes... etc. In my mind, breeding towards award standards is counter productive. One of the things that I like about Paph. fowliei, for example, is that the blooms are small; but for the species to be awardable, they must be bred larger... so people are breeding them larger. I like having some Paph concolor in my collection that are nice and yellow, some are pale, some are large, others quite small... etc.

Introducing genes from wild populations allows breeders to counteract this movement. I'm trying to do my part by breeding the wild divisions that I've managed to get my hands on.... my first flasks (of Paph stonei) should be ready this year.

Here's one of the parents... very different from the Paph stonei that are usually sold in the US:



I'd post dozens of other photos here to show what I mean, but that would make this post too long, so you can see more on my photo gallery page, here:
http://www.goreorchids.com/CatalogAn...d-Gallery.html

My worry is that the habitats of these orchids in the wild will soon be gone. I've seen the aerial photos of Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, and the rate of deforestation is astounding. Coupled with the climate change that's coming, there's a good chance that many orchids will soon be extinct in their native habitats. If we only have over-bred plants in cultivation, and no good examples of the plants in their natural forms, those forms may be lost forever.

And as long as we're on the topic, I should mention that I am really disgusted with how CITES is enforced in the USA. The Taiwanese have been selling flasks of Paph vietnamense and hangianum, etc, for nearly a decade. These are seed raised plants, obviously... and they are illegal to import into the USA, even in flasks, because the parent plants were not legally exported to Taiwan.

This means that all of the Paph hangianums in the USA (which are unfortunately relatively abundant) are wild collected plants that have been illegally imported from Vietnam (usually via China). If we were simply allowed to bring flasks into the USA, we could greatly reduce the demand for wild collected plants, and help protect those plants that are still in the wild. But, because the demand for wild collected plants remains high, many of the wild populations are being lost. Of course, in an ideal world, the USAs failure to buy flasks from illegal parents would keep Taiwan from breeding them and collecting wild plants.... but it doesn't. Given this reality, I think the US should do what it can to reduce the demand for wild plants by allowing the import of ALL flasks.

As Ever,
Matthew Gore

[gore42]

I've left my computer on this page for so long while thinking about this post that I missed Kevin Western's post until after I posted mine Kevin, I didn't know you were a member here... it's a pleasure to meet you! I've been using your W3 media for about a year now with great results, thanks!

- Matthew Gore

[kmarch]

Matthew,

Excellent post....can I come to work for you?

[gore42]

LOL ! I wish that I could afford to bring in employees from Australia I got a resume by email a month or two ago from a Professor in India, which took me by surprise, since I'm not advertising for employees (or hiring at all, for that matter).

- Matt

[Anton]

Matthew, you touched ona pet peeve of mine which I mentioned in my original post, that I think the Powers That Be that DICTATE what is good for exhibiting need their asses kicked from her to kingdom come !!!!!!!!

I have been involved in the dog world and more recently in Lovebird breeding and it never ceases to amaze me WHY these idiots want to get away from the natural to create artificial breeds.

Ok, maybe a bit a genetic engineering, BUT, there should be a big push back to ORGINAL SPECIES, and if you don't like the look of originals DON'T BUY THEM !!!!!

As you touched on, you've GOT TO to get back to original stock to beef up the different species. Look waht happens in "human genetic engineering" a la Deliverence......... SO AS YOU ARE DOING, AND I COMMEND YOU ON IT, get back original genes into the plants to build them up.

I personally have an interest in species my first ever was a Phal pulchra and thought "what a fascinating plant" totally different from the everyday run of the mill Phals, and now following along this line.

I am getting 6 flasks of different species orchids from Bali via a nurse here at work who is going over next month.

My 2 petals worth.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Anton

Matthew, you touched ona pet peeve of mine which I mentioned in my original post, that I think the Powers That Be that DICTATE what is good for exhibiting need their asses kicked from her to kingdom come !!!!!!!!

Note to self: Aparently Anton wants to kick my butt.

Note to Anton: Chill.

[Anton]

No, you are learning the trade, I think it goes higher than just judges Kevin.

I AM quite calm Kevin it is only an expression of what I think I am not stewing while writing, on the contrary I am enjoying this very interesting and important thread.

It's just that I have seen dog breeds ruined by "designer " breeding and also African Lovebirds and don't want to see orchids go the same way. I think there should be a push back to original species in competition.

[brookn]

Ah Anton, you have broached a subject that I am passionate about also with the dog breeding. The things they are doing with "designer dogs". A few years ago, you could not have given the darling mutts away and now they have cutesey little names for them.

I also have seen what "selective breeding" has done, a few dictate what my danes SHOULD look like. Makes me pretty mad. I could write an essay on the specific charisterics that are being bred into the lines to make them adhere to a standard that does not come close to the originations of the breed. My lines have had to be scrapped (I love my babies, but will not breed any of them again once was enough), and I will have to start anew with imported German lines to even come close to a less polluted line, which is also not as favorable in appearance. The thing is, that it holds true with the points made about the gene pool and disease. Breeding the charisteric of the moment, and types (and I do not mean all line breeding if done responsibly) of line breeding should be prohibited. What you get may look "better" according to someone else, but at what price to what is created.

[Anton]

Brook, this is why I am passioate about it, I used to have Dobermanns and mine was German X English which bred a big powerful dog which Herr louis Dobermann wanted, but to now see them looking like Whippets defies description.

I know this takes us away from the discussion at hand, but it IS connected by personal experience with dogs and birds as I mentioned.

I wouldn't like to see orchids go the same way just for the sake of designing bigger more colourful flowers.

Don't get me wrong, I too love some of the crosses, and some of which are natural hybrids, BUT I think there should be a push back to what they were originally like in the wild.

Is that asking too much ?????

[brookn]

I absolutely agree with you. My family used to have Doberman, and my first dog when I lived on my own was a doberman, they are starting to look more like whippets. The daneness is being taken from the Danes also to make them taller but too sleek, they should have heavy substance. Being myself predominately German (Great granny fresh off the boat), I find the heavier substance also equals healthier. They knock things around real good, but I can have them with me in good health longer.

But yes, back to the matter at hand. I find myself turning up my nose ( for lack of a better phrase) at some of the hybrids that I see, though they are lovely, they lack that substance and character. People tend to take a cookie cutter approach to things, and if it works, they make hundreds of them. Being a rebellious person myself, I find that I like to see the unique charicteristics of things, and that makes the cookie cutter approach a bitter pill to swallow. It is comforting to the psyche to be able to have a mold or an ideal, but I do believe it gets taken too far. What has to be done will be done by a few that are not looking to see profit in it.

I do agree with your thoughts on species, as I find I am gravitating more and more to them. I like the hybrids, and am not above owning them, but as I develop a finer appreciation of orchids (thanks in big part to Kevin) I am looking at quality over quantity. I think that the laws could definitely use a rework, because though there are abusers, there are also people with good intentions. Taking that into account, no matter what the law decides, the people with bad intentions will find a way around the rules. Punish all for the violations of a few with bad intentions is just not the way.
My interest also lies in the fact that many things will someday only be available for my children to see in museums, zoos, botanical gardens, and that is distressing because it in turn makes the subject seem less real. I for one do not want our future generations to think in order for life to be created, it has to be done in a sterile setting.

Okay enough of my soapbox...

[Anton]

BTW Brook I slightly digress, but I don't think you have made a contribution to the Post a Pic of Yourself thread ???? Hmmmm ?

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Anton

I wouldn't like to see orchids go the same way just for the sake of designing bigger more colourful flowers.

What are you calling "designer orchids"? Line-bred species? Hybrids?

[sandra]

This thread is outstanding.

[tom499]

This is gettin rather deep indeed By this talk of dog breeding, do you mean it by, humans are controlling evolution? rather than letting natural do it how it does, humans are creating characteristics that we want, rather than what is good for survival?

I can see this as being an issue with animals especially, dogs being bred with such flat noses they can bearly breathe and such.

I like hybrids and species orchids, i choose by what i can grow and if i looks nice. One thing to think of here is, what is a species really? Surely plants we call species now were hybrids of other plants?

And all these plants are constantly"mutating" in small ways, their very DNA changes, creating different plants. I think this is great and gives plants a more unique standing compared to mass propagated plants in dutch factories.

[Anton]

Kevin I am still learning orchid culture, but in line-breeding is there any outcrossing to "natural" stock to improve the line ? Dog breeding and birds I know having spent many years in both, but still feeling my way with orchids, so can't categorically say at present.

What little I have had the chance to read so far, as soon as the early "pilferers" who collected orchids from the wild couldn't wait to cross them to change the characteristics of the plants to "make them more attractive" for commercial sale.

From what I have read species such as Paphs have gone away from the original plants that were in the wild. Admittedly there are still some species specimens out there, but even they differ greatly from the original plants collecte in the 1800s.

The point I am trying to make is, yes, I do like a lot of the hybrids, but I also think there should be a move back to breeding orchids as they would have been found originally in the wild. if this means getting limited, controlled numbers from the wild to do it, surely like birds and dogs, that would strengthen the line ?

We can't undo what has been in motion since the 1800s but these days with conservation and trying to capitalize on the mistakes made by our forebares, attempting to try and get back some species to "original" should be attempted ?

Tom you got it in one. Natural hybridizing is something else, no issue there, that is controlled by nature.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Anton

Kevin I am still learning orchid culture, but in line-breeding is there any outcrossing to "natural" stock to improve the line ?

(NOTE: Anton you probably know some of this already but I'll say it anyway so everyone can join us on the same page.)

Line breeding is when a species orchid is crossed/bred only with another plant of the exact same species. For example a Phal schilleriana is pollinated with another Phal schilleriana. Because it is a crossing of the same species, the offspring are also the same species, Phal schilleriana. Sometimes the parents used are the product of previous line breeding and sometimes not. The goal of line breeding is usually improved flower form, colour, floriferousness, etc. (although it can be for other characteristics as well like vigor or ease of growth in cultivation). Serious breeders usually have dozens of plants of one species, to keep with the example, say Phal schilleriana. Maybe one of the schilleriana has big flowers but fewer per stem, while another schilleriana in the breeder's collection has ordinary flowers but significantly more than what it typical. The breeder will polinate the two schillerianas with the hopes of getting offspring wiht bigger and more flowers per stem. Even after generations of line breeding though the offspring still look like the species that they are.

Originally Posted by Anton

From what I have read species such as Paphs have gone away from the original plants that were in the wild. Admittedly there are still some species specimens out there, but even they differ greatly from the original plants collecte in the 1800s.

This is true for hybrids but not for line-bred species. For example, exhibition Paphs (bulldogs, frogs, or whatever else you want to call them) are far removed from the species used to create them originally. There is no Paph species that looks like a hybrid exhibition Paph. To be more clear, most exhibition Paphs come from the species in the Paphiopedilum section of Paphs: villosum, gratrixianum, insigne, druryi, charlesworthii, exul, henryanum, and spicerianum, yet no exhibition Paph today looks anythign like one of these species. This can also be seen in extensively hybridized Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, and Cymbidiums. None of the Cymbidiums I posted pics of in my recent post titled More Cymbidiums, bears any resemblance to any of the Cymbid species.

This isn't really true for species though because even extensively line bred species still look like species. For example, in 2004 there was a wave of awards given to Paph rothschildianums, most likely line bred roths that came form one of the 2-3 big roth breeders in America. They all looked like roths and they all fit into the descriptions and the range of flower size and count as found in botanical descriptions which were based on collected and field-observed plants. The only "difference" if you can call it that was that they were all at the very top end of the ranges for size and flower count. According to Cribb's description the average for size is 22cm with the range being 14-30cm. The average size of the line-bred roths was 28cm. Cribb's description puts the average flower count at 4 with the range being 2-6. The average flower count of the line-bred roths was 5.

I've seen lots of line bred Cattleya species, harrisoniana, aurantiaca, forbesii, etc, etc. and they are similar. they're towards the large end of the descriptions and towards the high end of the flower count, but easily recognizable as the Catt species they are.

Therefore I submit that the notion, that has surfaced a couple of times in this thread, that line bred species are somehow genetic freaks that bear little if any resemblance to their wild counterparts, is not accurate.

Originally Posted by Anton

We can't undo what has been in motion since the 1800s but these days with conservation and trying to capitalize on the mistakes made by our forebares, attempting to try and get back some species to "original" should be attempted ?

There are a couple of implications here that I disagree with:

1) The implication that a species with good flower form, count, etc., etc. is somehow not "original," that award-winning qualities in a species orchid is somehow unnatural. I dont' believe this to be the case. First of all genes don't come from nowhere. Whatever genes we have present in our cultivated species orchids today, even the line bred ones, originated at some point in a wild plant in its natural habitat. So genes that produce flower qualities that make them awardable are present in uncultivated, wild orchids too. Check out some of the "in situ" photos in Phillip Cribb's Paph book. There's a couple in there that are awardable.

2) The implication that line-breeding to enhance various aspects of a flower is a mistake. I don't see how saying "I like a bigger flower so I'm going to breed for bigger flowers." is somehow a mistake.

3) The implication that it is necessary that we take line-bred species and "devolve" them back into "original" species. What's the point of doing this? Conservation? If it's conservation why don't we just conserve non-line-bred plants? Why not conserve (when possible) by not collecting at all? Why not conserve (as Kevin Western implied) with the intention of reintroduction? Surely all of these pollibilities are feasable without using line-bred plants.

Whew...i'm getting brain strain....i'll stop for now.

[sandra]

I feel like one dumb bunny here. I can't offer another great argument. You've all given me something to ponder and again, I love this thread.

What keeps coming to mind as I'm reading is even that which is left alone to conserve, can't remain the same. Genes that are passed on to their offspring eventually mutate and are transferred between species. This is true in most (not all) life form. As these differences become more common, they eventually evolve....and away from it's original genetic makeup, a genetic drift so-to-speak.

I'll bow out once again and keep reading updates.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by sandra

Genes that are passed on to their offspring eventually mutate and are transferred between species.

Only occasionally do orchids of different species cross. When this happens we call it a "natural hybrid." The vast majority of polination in the wild occurs within a single species, not between species.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by kmarch

Only occasionally do orchids of different species cross. When this happens we call it a "natural hybrid." The vast majority of polination in the wild occurs within a single species, not between species.

Yes but in and of themselves species mutate. Not arguing, just pondering

[janet_a]

Originally Posted by sandra

This thread is outstanding.

yes, where's that "rate this thread" button?

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by kmarch

There are a couple of implications here that I disagree with:

1) The implication that a species with good flower form, count, etc., etc. is somehow not "original," that award-winning qualities in a species orchid is somehow unnatural. I dont' believe this to be the case. First of all genes don't come from nowhere. Whatever genes we have present in our cultivated species orchids today, even the line bred ones, originated at some point in a wild plant in its natural habitat. So genes that produce flower qualities that make them awardable are present in uncultivated, wild orchids too. Check out some of the "in situ" photos in Phillip Cribb's Paph book. There's a couple in there that are awardable.

Well, as long as one is not also sacrificing plant vigour in favour of specific floral characteristics, I agree. However, many line-breeding programs focus only on flower quality, and sometimes you get weak, disease-prone plants (Paph. delanatii, for example), or plants that are quite difficult to flower reliably, or are plodding and slow in their growth (I know many people who have had problems with tetraploid Cattleya walkeriana lines, for example...).

2) The implication that line-breeding to enhance various aspects of a flower is a mistake. I don't see how saying "I like a bigger flower so I'm going to breed for bigger flowers." is somehow a mistake.

TO the extent that flower size/shape/colour comes at the cost of overal plant health, I feel it could be a mistake. After generations of self-polination or sib crossings, the likelyhood of continuing deleterious genetic traits as well as favourable ones is something to consider. Easily solved by either crossing back to "original" stock, or by outcrossing with other plants from line breeding programs based on genetically different stock, but still not everyone does or even necessarily can do so, conveniently. Let's not forget that CITES also prohibits international transport of pollen and seeds. If all the breeding stock of a given species in a country is based on two or three plants, and it is difficult or impossible to get new sap (as it were) into the lines, how long is it before you start to see certain negative side-effects? Look at Laelia jongheana, or Epi. ilense.

3) The implication that it is necessary that we take line-bred species and "devolve" them back into "original" species. What's the point of doing this? Conservation? If it's conservation why don't we just conserve non-line-bred plants? Why not conserve (when possible) by not collecting at all? Why not conserve (as Kevin Western implied) with the intention of reintroduction? Surely all of these pollibilities are feasable without using line-bred plants.

The problem with plant conservation is that often species are discovered because the habitat is being encroached upon by man. Plants, as it turns out, can't move to new habitats, and where laws prohibit collection for any reason-even relocation/reintorduction-it becomes very dificult to do anything positive.

Overall, in my opinion, the basic problem with CITES is that it was completely and blatantly written with animals in mind. The plant sections of CITES are tacked on as an afterthought, with little-if anything-to do with actual conservation efforts.

Oh how I despise the inefficiency of beurocracy!

-Cj

[PhalPal]

I see nothing wrong with the creation of hybrids, but never at the expense of species in the wild. Let's face it, if not for hybrids most of us Geek home growers would not be able to maintain the average species in our environment. Hybrids have made orchids readily available to the average Joe. I am aware that a serious grower with a varied collection would not be satisfied with an orchid that I can buy at the grocery store, but I am delighted with them.
With that said, there is nothing like seeing a plant or animal wild in it's natural habitat. If it meant giving up my hybrids to protect orchids in the wild I would not give it a second thought.

Man would have no need to be involved in preserving species if we did not destroy their natural habitat.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Orchidflowerchild

Well, as long as one is not also sacrificing plant vigour in favour of specific floral characteristics, I agree. However, many line-breeding programs focus only on flower quality,

While I have not done a survey of all orchid breeders, the handfull that I have heard speak and talked to at orchid conferences, makes me of the opinion that breeders, both hybridizers and line-breeders of species, consider the full range of factors when setting their breeding goals, that few if any (none of those i've spoken to) breed for only flower characterisitcs.

Originally Posted by Orchidflowerchild

and sometimes you get weak, disease-prone plants (Paph. delanatii, for example), or plants that are quite difficult to flower reliably, or are plodding and slow in their growth (I know many people who have had problems with tetraploid Cattleya walkeriana lines, for example...).

When this happens, these plants can't get far can they. They're certainly undesirable as breeding stock and breeders wouldn't want them unless they had some suerior, outstanding quality that would nake them worth the effort.

At this stage in the discussion we should keep in mind that there are many different types of growers and breeders. It's like race car driving. I might be able to change the oil in my car and do a few other routine maintainenance tasks, but i could never keep a formula one race car running. i have to leave that to the pros who know those cars. The same is true for orchids. Given my current state of orchid knowledge and growing conditions, I can keep my plants running but I would probably not be able to line-breed and bloom award-winning Paph rothschildianum like Terry Root from the Orchid Zone does. He's got the specialist knowledge and set up that allows him to be successful where I could not be. Just because I can't grow it doesn't mean it shouldn't be grown.

[brookn]

Anton, I did take a self portrait to post, but as it was on the cell phone, was not the most flattering. I will try to find a suitable one soon.

I believe that I agree with Orchidflowerchild's post, you have summed up some of what I was trying to say. It is hard for me to apply it to plant breeding. It is also hard for me to really explain what I mean without using dogs as an example, it is what I know. Thanks for putting it into plant speak so to say.

I don't think that anyone is trying to generalize and speak of all plant breeders and all hybrids, I think the point is the few that just go, "Oh this and that would look lovely, let's breed them." Then they put together plant A and plant B even though they know that plant A has a tendency to be vulnerable to fungus, and plant B is intolerant to climate change etc... I am suggesting that some breeders put the crosses together with the intention of getting them to the market for the beauty of the flowers, and knowing that half or more will end up with someone who will pitch the plant or kill it, and not caring why it did not grow, re bloom, and so on. That to me is irresponsible and wasteful. That is also another reason (it probably was a bit misleading in my post) why I find myself moving away from certain hybrids most pointedly noids. I think they are great and I have some, but I find that they do not tickle me as much as the ones that I know the names and parentage even though I have not learned enough to know if the parentage is optimal a lot of the time. In referring to designer, many times you are looking at a spiffied up mutt. I've seen pictures from greenhouses of this type of grower that is focusing less on the plants and more on how they look to companies like box stores selling a ton of them. My thought when seeing this is "but do they love them, or the money?". I feel the plants are still worthy of a home, but it is so sad that in buying them cause I feel bad for them, I am still supporting the indiscriminate. They are still very lovely to me.

Tom in essence the genetics of the dogs are manipulated by breeding for traits. When man first domesticated them was when this began. For example (and this is just a made up scenario) when Bob in Germany had a dog with a brown spot and all the other dogs were white he exclusively bred this dog to look for the brown spot in the progeny and he looked for others with a brown spot to breed with his. He did not so much care that his dog was prone to say heart attacks in his fathers line, he liked the brown spot. But there were only a limited amount of dogs with a brown spot, and they were bred indiscriminately, so eventually it was normal for brown spotted dogs to have heart problems. So small dogs were bred with small dogs to make even smaller dogs,for those who loved them, and the selection went for other dogs for traits as varied as tail length, or ear shape... If you get a chance to look into the history of the bulldog, you will find that maybe 150 to 200 years ago they did not look anything like what they do now, because of the manipulation of the breeding toward preferable traits. The resulting health problems were just considered a side effect of getting the look that was preferred. In nature a dog the size of a paperweight would find it difficult to survive in the wild especially without their groomer, and someone to carry it around lol. And in turn that hopefully casts some light into what Anton and I were going on about.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Well, for sure the experimental breeding programs do tend to come to dead ends... THen again, sometimes you don't know the plants have issues until they hit the market, because in a controlled greenhouse enviroment those plants may grow and bloom just fine, but in the backyard of the average hobbyist?

And let's not even start talking about how I feel about colchicine and other such unnatural manipulations.... Not only are you screwing with the genes with chemicals in the first place, but man some of those things have come out with REALLY wacky ploidy. I recall some batches of Soph. coccinea that some of the mini catt breeders were playing with about eight or ten years ago which were fantastic forms of the species, but turned out to be horrid breeders because their genes were all jacked up and the were all but sterile.

But then, I'm sortof a purist...I don't much cotton to line breeding that involves more than vision and a toothpick. I shudder to think what will happen to orchid breeding once serious genetic engineering is more realistically feasable. Remember the glow-in-the-dark dendrobiums they were trying to market a few years back? Oy gevalt.

-Cj

[PhalPal]

I just love this thread.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by janet_a

yes, where's that "rate this thread" button?

It's on the bar at the top of the thread. Click the arrow next to "Rate Thread" and a little menu should drop down and you can clikc on your choice of rating.

[gore42]

Kevin,

You've made some good points. I'd like to respond to a few that you posted there at the end of a previous post ....

1) The implication that a species with good flower form, count, etc., etc. is somehow not "original," that award-winning qualities in a species orchid is somehow unnatural. I dont' believe this to be the case. First of all genes don't come from nowhere. Whatever genes we have present in our cultivated species orchids today, even the line bred ones, originated at some point in a wild plant in its natural habitat. So genes that produce flower qualities that make them awardable are present in uncultivated, wild orchids too. Check out some of the "in situ" photos in Phillip Cribb's Paph book. There's a couple in there that are awardable.

I don't mean to suggest that there are no award quality wild plants... after all, some of the most highly awarded roths were wild collected (Charles E, Borneo, etc), and most of the best roths today are second generation crosses... many being line bred (crossed back to the parents).

The fact is, though, that MOST of the plants in the species are not award quality... they don't have such wide dorsal sepals, petals as horizontal or wide, such large blooms, etc. Most have fewer blooms, smaller flowers, different shapes, etc. I have a few myself that are divisions of wild plants that are just not award quality… but they do better represent the species as a whole. This is not to say that they are more valuable to me than something like a division of ‘Borneo’, but they are just as valuable, since they help complete the range of variation found within the species that can be found in cultivation.

This is equally apparent in Phrag. besseae. There are a variety of forms in the wild, a variety of petal widths and stances, colors, and sizes. And there are some that are award shape… like Phrag besseae ‘Red Ball’. Now, if you go to just about any orchid vendor in the US that sells besseae, you’ll find that they have ‘Haven x Smokin’ or ‘Colossal x Smokin’ or one of the other new Orchid Zone crosses…. all of which are large, with oversized, wide petals, bright red, and flat form. They’re the reason that there have been so many besseas awarded in the past year. But if most breeders had their druthers, the next generation would be offspring of these plants, and the rest would be left behind.

I have no problem with breeding for award quality… it’s a great goal, and I love pretty flowers as much as the next guy. But it’s not a good solitary goal! My real interest isn’t in pretty flowers, it’s in Paph species; their natural history, their adaptations, their evolution and pollination mechanisms… all of these things are what make them interesting. And really, I don’t want all of my blooms to look the same… I enjoy blooming 10 or 20 of the same species and seeing all of the little differences that make them unique.

That is all just to say that when breeders breed for award quality blooms, the species suffers.
(I have very little interest in hybrids, though I do prefer primary hybrids to species. I don’t think that there are any profound environmental considerations regarding hybrids… I just don’t like them much. Complex Paph hybrids, however, are simply boring to me, even if they are massive and round. I like lots of different shapes, not just flat and round.)

2) The implication that line-breeding to enhance various aspects of a flower is a mistake. I don't see how saying "I like a bigger flower so I'm going to breed for bigger flowers." is somehow a mistake.

I agree… there is nothing wrong with breeding for any particular quality, as long as it’s not all that we do.

Unfortunately, history has proven that with many species (let me add Paph. druryi to the list), people have only bred their “best” plants, and as a result, that selective breeding has rendered the gene pool in cultivation to be very uniform (and in the case of druryi, probably contaminated by other species, from what I’ve read).

3) The implication that it is necessary that we take line-bred species and "devolve" them back into "original" species. What's the point of doing this? Conservation? If it's conservation why don't we just conserve non-line-bred plants? Why not conserve (when possible) by not collecting at all? Why not conserve (as Kevin Western implied) with the intention of reintroduction? Surely all of these pollibilities are feasable without using line-bred plants.

I don’t think it’s necessary or, indeed, desirable to “devolve” line-bred or selectively bred species. They have their place in the world (see above )

But, with conservation in mind, we should also breed (but more importantly, divide and maintain) the wild collected plants that we still have. I wish that we had the option of simply not collecting them in the first place, but there are several reasons that it’s not feasible to just leave them alone… primarily, it is habitat destruction. As I’m sure you know, many species are found in very very restricted geographic regions, and they are very susceptible to being completely wiped out by development, fires, extreme weather, etc.

Of course, this also speaks to why re-introduction may not be practical. In some cases, countries may establish parks or preserves that have a habitat suitable for otherwise extinct species. Some South American countries have made good headway in this sort of thing, and of course, most nations have protected areas… it’s just a matter of getting them in the right places (and hoping that the development around them doesn’t have too strong an effect on the ecosystem).

But China, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines are all among the top 15 most populous nations in the world, and their dwindling forests hold dozens of Paph species that we know of. It’s a bit optimistic to expect that they’ll all put on the brakes before they destroy that habitats of my favorite orchids… the USA certainly hasn’t set a good example. If you have the stomach for it, take a look at some satellite images of that area of the world… and see how much of that formerly lush green jungle is now brown. I hope that I’m over-reacting, but I’d rather be safe and have a good sample of the gene pool in captivity just to be safe.


I guess I’ll leave it at that for this evening.

Since I mentioned Phrag besseae earlier, I might as well say that I bought a Phrag. besseae plant from Chuck Acker last winter that came from Peru, which is a really great variant! The blooms are a bit small, but attractive, but the plant’s growth habit is not “climbing” like so many other besseas… the new growths appear at the same level as the old ones, not two inches higher. To me, that’s a characteristic that is just as important as over-sized petals, and I’m sure that those of you who grow Phrags will understand the potential for plants like this.

As Ever,
Matthew Gore

[PhalPal]

Is it just me or is any one else having trouble finding that 'rate this thread' button ? I even changed formats and it is no where to be found.

Can find 'Thread Tools' 'Display modes' and 'Search this thread' but nothing else??

[janet_a]

i was actually sort of kidding, but you get the idea.

very interesting about bessaes...

[kmarch]

Matthew,

Very thoughtful, substantial, and informative post. Thanks for taking the time.

-K

[gore42]

Yikes! Just read back through my post and realized that I wrote...

(I have very little interest in hybrids, though I do prefer primary hybrids to species. ...

That was supposed to be "I prefer primary hybrids to complex." Or maybe I mean "of species" or something like that. Man... what a thing to say. *shudder*



- Matt

[sandra]

Matthew, your orchid catalogue website is beautifully laid out, it's fantastic!

[kev1970]

i have just been reading through these threads here and..holy smoke!!..a few have gone from "no" to "maybe" .As someone said, if it wern't for the early collectors,we would have nothing.
so if that was the case,we wouldnt be attempting to breed plants that were inferior to start with (apart from a select few) to create something that nature would have possibly done anyway..( line bred im talking here).
i know it would have taken countless years to achieve this in nature...but in the same respect,i think man has gone a bit too far with the breeding programmes impossed.
its all good and well breeding for flower count,spike quality,flower size,shape,flat, round and god knows what else,just to please a group that out of a cross may get 4 or 5 plants from a possible 20,000+,that are "show bench quality"(thats if they are all grown!!!!to which i would say they aren't.)
would this have happened in nature or would they have died out due to nothing to pollinate them at this point in time. (the top 5 flowers i mean)!!one d kingie grower i know said the best 5 plants are "always the most vigorous growers and have the best flowers",so what about the other 19,995?? i think they still deserve a place somewhere to grow....who knows,they "may have a rogue gene " that no-one knows about to produce a pure blue d. kingianum !!!!(as an example.....so i am a kingie freak..hahahaha) this is how nature alters its genes to ,and whatever else, to "fit in" to "their " society and where they grow in the location,and climate that suits them best in relation to pollination vectors................
anyway...sorry bout that little outburst there...i could go on for hours with my opinions..hehehehe.....i think if a particular plant is in danger of becoming extinct,then something,even though its not really up to us overall,has to be done.nature is funny i guess...there would be a reason for it biting the dust...new species from old??? it has to start somewhere i guess apart from a lab.....its sad that most of it is because of us doing the destructing ,hey....so i am all for it in relation to keeping rare species going for future generations to enjoy....kev

[kev1970]

hey guys.....these are only my views...im not a greenie in respect of totally closing down all forests to everyone...i love going through the forests especially the antarctic beech forests we have here..........please....be gentle with me...im new...

[PhalPal]

kev1970- I totally agree with you and the concept of survival of the fittest. Nature should be left to nature. However, this all changes when man and not nature is responsible for the destruction of a habitat that will result in the extinction of any species. When this happens I feel it is our duty to intervene and attempt to remedy the situation. Easier said then done.

Never be afraid of expressing your opinion! That is what this forum is all about, especially a thread such as this!

[Aleksa]

You know... I think that we shouldn't collect them from nature... But I'm pretty sure that, if I ever find any orchid in forest, I will take it home!

[gore42]

Aleska, are you really from Montenegro, or is that a Nero Wolfe joke? He was the Private Investigator (by Rex Stout) who had 10,000 orchids in his greenhouse on top of his old brownstone in NY... and he was from Montenegro.

- Matt

[jbigio]

I just read through the different responses and the point I think we need to keep in mind is that the ongoing mass destruction of the natural areas that these plants grow in WILLl guarantee there extinction weather we like it or not. Why is it wrong when a lumber operation has bulldozed acres of forest for collectors to go in and collect the plants to keep them from being killed? I don’t think there should be any collecting in preserves. In commercial and unprotected areas once the trees are knocked down (which I’m totally against) there should be an x number of days before the timber is collected that collectors, with permits should be allowed to go in and collect the orchids and other plants. The argument against this in the past has been how do you know they will only collect from this area and the logical answer is why risk you life climbing a tree or scaling a cliff to collect the same plants that are on the ground.
I don’t think only institutions should be allowed to do the colleting since this is what was behind the whole CITTES mess. I would suggest that people get a copy of Orchid Fever which gives you an inside look at just this topic.
Joe

[kmarch]

kev1970, If I may respectfully comment on a couple things you've said, it sounds as if you're under the impression that many people believe that anything that isn't of showbench quality isn't worth having or growing. There may be a very small number of ardent orchid showers who feel this way, but for the vast majority of growers from beginning hobbiests all the way up to judges and nursery owners this certainly isn't the case (and of course i'm speaking only of those people I know). For every 1 line-bred, showbench quality Den kingianum I see, I see 100 for sale on sale benches, at fairs, and I see dozens of them in peoples' collections, being enjoyed and happily grown in collections. They're always showing up at club meetings being proudly shown off (and rightly so) by the folks growing them. I also regulary hear judges say things like, "It's not an awardable flower but I would love to have that plant in my collection."

Showing orchids is a highly specialized thing, like racing horses or showing dogs, or even auditioning actors for a movie or Broadway musical. Hundreds (thousands) of orchids are bred (and not all of them bred for the show bench) but only a few will be of showbench quality. The same with dogs, hundreds are bred, only a few are right for shows, the rest (hopefully) go to loving homes. Only a few horses will qualify for the big race, only one actor will get the part. This is just the nature of showing. Just as a company finds when it posts an advert to fill a new position, not everyone that applies is well suited to the job. Some of the applicants are better suited to other roles. Not all orchids are well suited for the showbench, but they're ideal for something else (usually s a pot plant, a decorative plant, sometimes cut flowers, etc., etc.).

[PhalPal]

Well said Kevin. I have three pedigree cats and three very mixed breeds. I love all my 'kitty-children' exactly the same!

Having worked in the racing industry, (thoroughbreds) it is amazing that the difference between a champion and a horse turned into a child's jumper can be the difference of 3/5ths of a second over a mile race. All were stunningly beautiful horses but assigned different purposes in life for being just a fraction slower.

When collecting anything, worth should only matter to the 'owner' (for lack of a better term) Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder and dictated by what the heart tells you.

[ncorchid]

After voting I was interested to see that "maybe" is leading the poll results by a large margin (almost 5 to 1). I agree with that. One of the biggest problems that we have in the US is loss of habitat to development. I think that is more than appropriate to collect plants from areas that are being developed. In most cased that plants will not survive unless someone moves them to a more hospitable location.

Otherwise I believe that it is inappropriate for field collections unless they are being made by organizations that are involved with researching the perpetuation of the species.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by PhalPal

When collecting anything, worth should only matter to the 'owner' (for lack of a better term) Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder and dictated by what the heart tells you.

You raise a point i have often thought about but never articulated here in the forum. I agree absolutely that when it comes to our personal collections we are the absolute final authority on what is "beautiful" and I always encourage people to grow what they like and what they can grow well. My heart certainly dictates what I buy (thus the reason i have so many Paphs).

However once we enter an orchid in a show, we're opening the door for that flower to be judged by other people using a set of formal standards which may or may not seem in keeping wiht our personal opinion of the flower's "beauty." Subjective terms like "beauty" are rarely used when evaluating the formal, colour, and other aspects of the flower. That's not to say judges never look at a flower and say "That's pretty." of course we do, we are afterall human and respond to lovely things in a human way. It is to say however that "beauty" is not one of the judging criteria and that there are zillions of beautiful orchids that do not receive awards.

Other orchid judges may disagree with me, but in my brain, "beautiful" and "awardable" are not 100% the same. Furthermore some folks feel as if judges and showbench breeders are telling them what they should and should not like or what is and is not beautiful. I can assure that with only a few exceptions this is not the case. Judges/breeders can tell you what is awardable, but as i said, that's not to say what is beautiful.

Just to throw another iron in the fire....i know lots of folks who grow certain types of orchids becuause they are interesting. They may not be colourful or showy or even appealing to some, but they are fascinating plants or flowers....now how does that come into it?