This is what I'm concerned about. And I think this is one of those "grey areas" of CITES legislation for the end growers like us. Incase there should ever be any questions about my own plants I have photographed them throughout their growth in my chamber (which can be seen in the background of the photos). Whether this could actually constitute "proof" of artificial cultivation or not would be up to the grand inquisitors.
Since you've brought this topic up... it's given me lots to think about also.
The plant inspector didn't ask me where I obtained the plant. He was more concerned about diseases and insects. He did look up information on the species itself before completing the documentations. If I wasn't there, he might have misclassified the N.Ventricosa.
It is my gut reaction to keep all necessary paperwork when my BUTT is on the line. Call it a natural, white-collar, pencil-pushing habit, but I keep all documents that can prove that I'm innocent of any wrong doing. For myself, I don't own any CITES app. 1 yet (maybe one day?), but I would keep a paper trail to be safe (receipts, invoices, etc)... just so I can sleep at night.
I guess if the nursery reciepts/invoices are generally all that's needed when only cultivating the plants and selling/trading cuttings incountry then I won't be too concerned as I have no intentions of international shipping.
I have also found out ("through the grape vine") that there are special exceptions by CITES for artificial TC propagation to certain nurseries. I wonder how they swing that? "Donations" I supose! I guess I shouldn't worry about it myself and just be sure to buy from people I am "sure" of importing legal plants!
Ignorance is bliss... [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif[/img]
I think CITES was designed to crack down on illegal seed and plant collection that will lead to the extinction of a particular species. But when it comes to TC, well it should be the opposite. TC plants should be exempted from CITES certificates, but i guess that's not the case.
Actually CITES was designed to crack down on animal exploitation such as: Ivory, Zebra skins, elephant foot umbrella stands and gorrilla paw ashtrays and other sick things. Plants were added to CITES "at the last minute". Even some of the people responsible for helping write the laws have said that when they implemented the treaty they didn't feel it was complete as pertaining to flora. Ammendments are being written as the lawyers who control the treaty are being taught that not all trade in endangered plant species is bad when you take the success rates of Tissue Culture and other art prop means into consideration. But as with all lawyers and politically volitile issues such as wildlife conservation chnge happens very slowly.
For example: if only 50 seeds of Nep rajah out of 5000 germinate and grow to maturity in a wild location but nearly all 5000 germinate invitro in the laboratory, then that is an amazing success! If even only 500 are able to be raised to maturity by competent growers, that is already 10x the success of plants in situ for the same period of time. And this doesn't include any propagation by cuttings by those plants in cultivation.
I have nothing against CITES intentions, it's a fantastic policy that I wish was farther reaching (including shutting down circuses and animal trick shows) but I wish the implementation was speedier in legislation in regards to flora when reliable cultivation methods are known.