The dangers of plant info sharing on the Net

[srduggins]

Good post quoque.
"Knowledge isn't knowledge until it is shared" - Leo Song - (I think)

I also remember being overjoyed by the new discovery and I think the discoverers are doing a lot for the conservation of this new species by spreading material out all over the world. If the plant becomes readily available, there should be less incentive to poach wild plants. The quicker this is done, the better. I also remember seeing that first photo and wondering if it might give away the location. I don't really see how, and its a pretty amazing shot.

I can also see the other side and how horrifying it is to see a newly discovered species ransacked and decimated in the wild. I think it makes sense to not show photos that have identifiable background scenery in it. We should do what we can to keep these locations secret, but the world is still shrinking and nothing will remain secret for long. Some day people may be searching the wilds via satellites.

Well then my question is easy then, well sort of. Where do I sign up for the technician job to help learn more and save what IS in the wild? I agree that there shouldn't be the secretiveness of the past secrets tend to just lead to bad things in the end. The internet is here and it's not going anywhere so yes, we all have to hop on and hold on tight. There's been a lot of change over there years with technology and the way people live today, we're gonna have to evolve just like the nepenthes have been doing since they've been around. And all in favor of quogue new all year open season poacher hunting, say I.

The problem with the pictures is don't or try best to keep locational landmarks out of the pictures and I'd say that there should be less of the picture location finders out there. After all some of us can find locations of areas if the picture depicts enough of the surroundings, per say pictures of just the pitcher/s or more of a close up of the plant parts that are the desired elements for the picture. Other than that keep teaching aabout the wonderful genus and doing whatever we can to help.

[alastair]

What an interesting thread; it's certainly illuminating to read different peoples' thoughts, particularly as I'm one of the scientists involved in the recent expedition cited above.

The concerns raised by Charles are -- indeed -- entirely valid, though his means of illustrating his point was perhaps ill-planned given his lack of familiarity with the circumstances and individuals through which the information was published; rest assured that the decision was not taken lightly, and bear in mind also, that the location details for N. sp. nov. 'DA' remain largely unknown save to a small number of plant scientists. Our decision to discuss one species openly and not the other was borne out of our discussions with local conservationists and government institutions, as well as what we already knew about these species before entering the country.

Those that have a legitimate reason for doing so can obtain copies of our permits as copies from ourselves, or directly from the Philippine institutions involved. These same permits were used to legitimise our collections for the depositing of living material in botanical institutions (Kew was more than satisfied with the documentation, and I'm sure that Atlanta shall be too) and on our behalf for the depositing of dried materials in local herbaria.

-----
-----

To address the points of concern:

Alerts illegal collectors - a very valid concern. We have not revealed the location of the new species, but you may find that the Filipinos themselves have in local news bulletins. This was not our choice, and indeed we left the decision to the country to whom these plants are remain a rightful, natural heritage.

Working out the location from photographs - always a possibility. In this instance, nothing is given away. If people want to PM me with their guesses, I'd be delighted to entertain them, though I'm not saying anything for obvious reasons!

Wild populations will be depleted by the time of description - is it really any better that wild populations be depleted post-description, rather than prior to description? Though perhaps not intentionally, the statement inaccurately risks implying that the description of a species might do something to protect it, when in fact that depends on ecological/conservational research that takes place around any discovery - the local authorities are desperate to protect the habitat in which this species occurs; this discovery gives them some ammunition, certainly, but how they chose to handle the information (in this case, knowledge about the species' existence) is ultimately their choice. We could not legally collect or deposit herbarium specimens without their complicit knowledge of its existence; by following regulations to the letter, we only put this species at risk to the extent that the local authorities chose.

As it stands, the type location of Nepenthes mira is known by every nature tourist guide in Palawan despite the locality not being published. It may soon be the case for this species, and not for the fact that a forum post highlighting its discovery was made.

Also, seed of all the species discovered/rediscovered on our expedition has been sent at our own cost to more than 10 tissue culture nurseries around the world, deposited in 3 botanical gardens with permission to propagate and disperse the materials within institutional circles sans profit, and the remaining seed sold off (with all profits to conservation drives) to individual growers on every continent bar Africa at low cost and in record time. This will not abrogate the eventual risk of poaching, but it is far from irresponsible and goes a long way in establishing these species in culture, hopefully to a degree that makes poaching very uneconomical.

For the general information of readers, seeds of all species have, as of a fortnight ago, germinated in the UK, the US, South America, and some of it in the hands of in vitro specialists who will no doubt propagate them silly.

Collection documents - will any of us ever see them? - it is my general view that if proof of collection is cited in a scientific publication, the authors are probably telling the truth. I have never had cause to challenge my colleagues in academia - the notion is as ridiculous to me as asking Charles or Ch'ien to immediately scan and upload copies of all their collection documents from the past because I fear that they may have broken the law.

As it stands, a Filipino colleague has recently informed me of his dismay at the description of Nepenthes mantalingahanensis since no records exist of this species having been legally collected, also the fact that the description is in a foreign language that the local scientists cannot easily translate, the fact that it is based on cultivated material with measurements that they don't agree with, that the name is spelled in the German and not local fashion, and that their attempts to legitimise the description prior to publication were ignored. There is a lot of politicing involved, but it does not mean that the authors of this species have knowingly broken the law or intended to exclude Filipinos - there may be circumstances about which the rest of us are unaware, but it is ultimately up to the authorities to dig up the facts if they feel something is amiss, and not for us to judge.

Isn't the proper way simply delaying the inevitable? - As is stated, to a point, but I'm a field botanist, not a conservationist, and it is for the authorities to decide how to handle what is theirs. Incidentally, many Nepenthes enthusiasts do have qualifications; I've studied botany since my teens, worked at Kew, have done small time curating in herbaria, completed a Bachelor's in Plant Sciences (UCL) before taking on a PhD (Cambridge, UK) studying plant developmental systematics (how cell growth patterns give rise to plant structures, classifying these patterns, the structures they form and also molecular work with the genes that control them - botany at its most modern). Qualifications don't free individuals from making mistakes or errors of judgement, but the training involved does help when having to make informed decisions.

I know that these slides are illustrating a series of points, and though it's not a great example that has been used, they're certainly salient.

The implications of this technology does have to be borne in mind, but a corollary of its use should never be an automatic belief that its users are acting irresponsibly.

-----
-----

Quite so, TwoTon, we can't be everywhere...

Merlin, that rumour pertains to Mount Mantalingahan; I heard similar from the Palawan PCSD, and it supposedly came in the wake of the articles produced by Conservation International about the recent botanical/animal finds up there.

Cindy, you'll be glad to know that our description of 'DA' involves local scientists and acknowledges the contributions of the locals (down to the names of individual tribesmen involved) in making the discovery possible. We were invited to prepare the manuscripts ourselves by the authorities, which was a tremendous honour.

Rob, 'DA' smells wonderful. At least, the flowers do!

Best wishes from London,

Alastair.

[stonejaguar]

Interesting give and take.

As someone who lives in Latin America works with a number of groups of even more general commercial interest than tropical CPs, I can assure you that a person who is circumspect as to what info he or she divulges can very much obscure the location of a given narrowly endemic plant or animal species. Since one of the groups I work with is infamous for commercial collectors having once taken taxonomic papers and going directly to type locality to grab adult plants, I favor not publishing locality data for new species with sensitive populations of commercial value AT ALL. It is also well-known that a great deal of info "leaks" from field workers to the trade, so I suppose that more care might be exercised on that front, too. One of the organisms I discovered and coauthored some time back has now become one of the most endangered of its particular group...mostly through a rabid commercial trade that followed the type series to the source. Healer, heal thyself, I guess.

Generally speaking I would say that the community in general is poorly-served by the rush to put locality info and unpublished binomials in public fora. As a painful example that was recently-mentioned on this site, Nepenthes rigidifolia Akhriadi, Hernawati & Tamin. How many times did collectors have to change name tags on that one? And who ultimately published it? And, BTW, are we finally done with this taxon's handle??

I would also say that it is just a tad disingenuous of Mr. Clarke to bang this drum too loudly, since a case could be argued that his beautifully-illustrated and informative monographs have done more to popularize (= increase demand for) some of the more spectacular and rare Nepenthes spp. I have the greatest of respect for Charles Clarke, and a great deal of admiration for his work, but part of the rush to remote parts of Sumatra and so forth by suitcase collectors can probably be laid at his door. Clearly this was never his intent, but all the same...

As for people outside of origin bashing "poachers" and so forth...I would ask you to inventory your personal collections and ascertain that EVERY plant and/or founding stock that produced it was taken, traded and transported legally at every step of the way. As the US Fish & Wildlife Service can assure you, no amount of hybridizing and so forth can launder the illegal genes out of artificially propagated plants. Please check the online exchanges regarding trade in the progeny of the orchid Paphiopedilum vietnamense Perner & Gruss in the 'States for some evidence of this. Coveted plants and animals will always find a way into your collections. Always. Consider this carefully before urging the death penalty for unlicensed collectors. Comments in the last post as to the impracticality of a call for copies of collection and export/import documents to be presented by every CP author over the past decade plus should also be noted. And as for First World environmentalists, I doubt that even the conservation cowboys over at CI lack for dirty laundry somewhere along the line.

Bottom line...personally I don't post info on my finds on the web, nor trumpet them at conferences prior to getting them either in print or well forward in press but I certainly wouldn't hammer those that see the world differently. I do echo Charles Clarke's plea that those that do should be EXTRA careful not to reveal any info that would lead to the depletion of wild populations. If this includes shading backgrounds of images to obscure associated flora, and fudging data for Joe Public, so be it.

Just some thoughts.

Cheerio,

[phissionkorps]

Really? Who? Descriptions of new species (flora or fauna) must be done in Latin. That rules out a lot of amateurs

You'd be surprized how many scientists/botanists don't speak Latin. They write up a description usually in English/German and have it translated into Latin by a professional translator. That being said, anyone can have a description published.

[vraev]

the thing is "there are humans" who don't really care, don't really bother about the consequence of poaching a wild plant (most cases, the plant dies of stress anyways). At the same time, its time that science is openly shared rather than try to drag it back into the dark ages. As someone else said, wikipedia it. Its good to have public records, but, yeah..don't disclose the exact location. Even then, chances are a RICH collector might still be adamant enough to go and "hire" locals to do the searching for it. All we can hope is that the locals can get some rewards if they report the "COLLECTOR" to the authorities. This might atleast give a bit of an incentive.

[twoton]

I think the discoverers are doing a lot for the conservation of this new species by spreading material out all over the world.

Just to liven up the already lively discussion by playing Satan's Legal Aid: the main reason for a Nepenthes plant to produce such an enormous number of seeds is their low viability in the wild. AFAIK, it's around 20%. Now, what if the few seed pods taken happen to be exactly that one batch that would have germinated in situ? Sure, we'll be able to achieve a germination rate of 90% under controlled circumstances in our labs and greenhouses, but that batch, that one batch which was taken and would have guaranteed the next generation of plants at that site, is gone.

My actual opinion is "take seeds in moderation and hope for the best, for the next bulldozer/landslide/typhoon/volcanic eruption might be just around the corner". It seems, though, that Matthew Jebb, Charles Clarke and other established botanists hesitate to embrace this concept. Maybe they've seen things we haven't?

Discuss! :-)

Phissionkorps: thanks for your insighton the Latin situation. I was unaware of that, and I find it shocking!

srduggins: People are searching the Earth by satellites already. If you would like to know more about this fascinating topic, join the CIA :-)

[vraev]

I surely agree for the take seeds concept. Its good to have atleast complete genetic maps of these plants before the "worse" occurs (Hope that it doesn't). But, yeah....we have to remember that such collection of seeds is WISE. For instance.... collect like a part of the seed pods, personally plant a few in "favourable" places and take some back for cryogenic storage and some for cultivation. This way a bit of human intervention along with a offset of "giving some seeds a favourable spot", + "taking some away", IMO evens the odds of the collected seeds. But, well... I really hope the clipeata can come back. It can be a real breakthrough in conservation.

[leilani]

Before I say anymore I should like to offer the following apology ...

Dear Dr. Clarke,

Please forgive the sarcasm in my previous post. I mean no disrespect to you personally. I admire your talents and treasure your books. You remain, in my mind, foremost in your field and I anxiously await the release of your most recent work.

Aloha,
Sam

Back on post .....

I feel that the message of fear with regard to the internet is the wrong way to go. The very same tools and speed that Dr. Clarke fears will bring destruction may just as well save nepenthes from destruction. The argument for secrecy and the very slow approach to the release of information seems to hinge entirely on the fear of poaching. I would certainly not wish to suggest that this is not an important issue and we have seen the damage unscrupulous poachers can do to an existing population right here on this forum. Poaching, however, is a very practical, on the ground, activity and the answer to curtailing poachers lies not in an informational prohibition but rather in a physical one. Local authorities are the only people who can stop poachers. To this end, it is far better to educate the authorities and the public and to thereby increase awareness and participation in conservation than to act in the same sort of secrecy as the poacher themselves. I am not saying that location data should be available to the general public but I do think everyone has a right to know about new discoveries and that such information should not be strictly the province of a minority of or individual scientist.

A far greater concern, it seems to me, is habitat destruction. Collectors are not to blame when a development wipes out a large or entire population of plants. In attempting to save species from development the internet is probably the conservationists greatest tool and hope. The public interest can be raised, support mustered, politicians swayed, rallies organized, monies made available, etc.

I think the release of information, made example of in Dr. Clarke's presentation, was not only responsible and educational but a first step toward a new and desirable direction in attempts to save such populations from extinction. These were not poachers but qualified and responsible naturalists that made these discoveries and I applaud the well considered decisions they made and their quick action to see that, even if the mother population were destroyed today, this species would survive in cultivation. Their actions seem eminently responsible and I think the way they have handled things up to this point might serve as a new model to be followed with subsequent discoveries.

Whether a plant has a finalized proper description make no difference in efforts to curtail poachers. Such a description is, of course, desirable but one would not have to go very far to find poor definitions for plants that were discovered over a hundred years ago. The speed of exploration, discovery and dissemination of informational and botanical material does indeed present challenges to the traditional methods and practices of taxonomy but we must adapt and learn to use these qualities to our purpose and benefit.

It seems to be that if were are to be successful in preserving these species then, a greater degree of transparency, not more secrecy, will be required in order for taxonomists to keep up. The day of the romantic lone taxonomist and explorer will need to come to an end and scientific task forces assembled. I realize, of course, the monetary impracticality of such discovery response teams but this only speaks, in my mind, to the need for the greater and speeder dissemination of relevant information.

I think we need to be very careful in our choice of words as it seem that, in some cases, the term 'collector' seems to be equated with 'poacher'. I feel that, in the end, collectors may well be the saving grace of nepenthes in horticulture and in the wild. I have said it before and, in spite of its sounding somewhat cynical, I believe that the most effective and sure method for longterm preservation of nepenthes is for them to acquire monetary value. People work much more efficiently to preserve those plants that have monetary value, institutions more readily fund efforts that ultimately produce viable commercial products, development respects economically valuable land and poachers are eliminated when legitimate sources of plants are affordable.

I would love to have had the opportunity to ask local authorities in Sarawak why, why Borneo is not the world leader in the export and propagation of nepenthes? Eco-tourism is fine but very limited in its potential to generate the funds necessary for large scale preservation efforts. Nepenthes trade can become just as viable as the orchid trade with greater education and visibility and I would think that the governments in the Sunda regions would have the foresight to pursue this as viable avenue of business for its citizens.

[cindy]

Thanks for the clarification, Alastair. Let what you have done be an example for the rest to follow.

That is,
1. Permits being used

2. Location of the new species not revealed..."left the decision to the country to whom these plants are remain a rightful, natural heritage".

2. "Also, seed of all the species discovered/rediscovered on our expedition has been sent at our own cost to more than 10 tissue culture nurseries around the world, deposited in 3 botanical gardens..."

Times have changed. The South East Asians who have the Nepenthes in their own backyard did not think anything of them years ago. Now, Nepenthes plants are pulled out from the wild and sold in the local markets. I believe the affluence of people living in the cities has fuelled the sales of such plants. Knowledge is a double-edged sword and even though it can propel collectors into buying the newest, nicest, largest of species/hybrids, it can also keep them informed how Nepenthes can be grown properly. Hopefully, this forum serves more the latter than the former aspects of knowledge delivery.

[twoton]

I would love to have had the opportunity to ask local authorities in Sarawak why, why Borneo is not the world leader in the export and propagation of nepenthes?

Well, it sure looks like they're fixin' to get there soon.

[merlin]

Merlin, that rumour pertains to Mount Mantalingahan; I heard similar from the Palawan PCSD, and it supposedly came in the wake of the articles produced by Conservation International about the recent botanical/animal finds up there.

alastair, yes, i think its the Palawan PCSD story.

Also, seed of all the species discovered/rediscovered on our expedition has been sent at our own cost to more than 10 tissue culture nurseries around the world, deposited in 3 botanical gardens with permission to propagate and disperse the materials within institutional circles sans profit, and the remaining seed sold off (with all profits to conservation drives) to individual growers on every continent bar Africa at low cost and in record time. This will not abrogate the eventual risk of poaching, but it is far from irresponsible and goes a long way in establishing these species in culture, hopefully to a degree that makes poaching very uneconomical.

did you give some seeds to UP mindanao? They TC neps there and they're Filipino.

Local authorities are the only people who can stop poachers.

sam, so true.

[Volker]

Hi,
I am back Actually since a while, but as we are building a house (or should I say pitcher plant farm?) right now, our lives take place between construction site, bathroom, bed and fridge (order and usage purpose may vary ).

I was quite surprised reading about Charles comments, as his books -which are my most favorite books- make a much more precise source to locate a plant, since not rarely mountain and even altitude can be found in the description. Information that we never have released and never will. No, we wont name the plant after the mountain/s/saddle, after us or after the District Attorney either.

Oh and the plants are quite safe up there, at least the population of poachers should be also decimated naturally, there are lots of deadly surprises in those forests. I think even Charles is not comfortable in the Philppines as far as I have heard.
Bigger threat are the mining operations that are threatening now even Sibuyan island (National Park!!), and the last remaining forests of Dinagat island. For me going to these locations repeatedly it is a very disturbing sight. Want to climb the highest mountain of Dinagat? No more. It's owned by a mining company, cordoned of by armed guards and trucks are going up to the summit every 30 minutes, scars in the (formerly virgin) forest up to the summit everywhere.

On one hand there is a nationwide logging ban on the other hand (Australian, Chinese (aka Walmart), Korean... ) mining operators are excepted from this ban to help the ailing economy. At least for a few years until everything is destroyed and the revenue is shared by everyone "important" except most of the residents in the area. Aside from the forest and water shed areas being destroyed, the mud flows of the mining operation even filled the breeding grounds of the fish living in the corals close to the shore. Fishing becomes too expensive/impossible, too.

Having said that, there are also some positive developments, but usually these set in after everything has been destroyed and the negative effects have been witnessed by everyone. I guess it is in peoples nature to buy an alarm system after there house has been broken into - rarely earlier. It's about the same.

Yes, forums and wikis rule, papers and fax machines should be forbidden I think forums can and did even help authorities to hunt poachers. And these need to be fast, right?

Regards,
Volker

[twoton]

I have no idea, Mike. Malesiana Tropicals comes to mind, but they can't be the only ones. Robert, JungleMike, do you know anything about this?

Back on topic: Charles Clarke just wrote to me re: my invitation to partake in this here discussion. He'll try to get around to post a reply later this week.

Cheers

Hans

[cindy]

Hans, glad you got Charles to come in to give us his comments. His intentions could be misconstrued or misunderstood as not everyone here was present at the Nepenthes Summit...in fact, most of them had just ended the 2nd part of the trips. At first I was getting worried that this thread has become a Charles Clarke bashing thread when some members got personal. Thank you for bringing us back to the topic from time to time.