Oh boy genetics.... Now I know that tune, who wants to dance??
genetics "wants" to improve the species..not weaken it..
To be clear here we are talking about genes and not genetics. Genes, in and of themselves, do not "want" anything. A gene is nothing more than a unit of information, it has no "wants" or "goals".
many "bad" mutations survive because of humans, when they *shouldnt* and wouldnt survive if nature was left to its own devices..
A mutation is no more "bad" than it is "good". A mutation simply is. However, how that mutation effects the organism can be said to be "bad" or "good" but that is totally arbitrary depending on who/what is making that determination. For example, most everyone would agree that Sickle Cell Anemia is "bad" and yet, in parts of the world where malaria is rampant, being a carrier for the Sickle Cell gene gives you a resistance to malaria which most people would say is "good". So, is Sickle Cell "bad" or is it "good"?
Personally I cant stand the "bart simpson" type VFT mutations..I think they are an abomination and should all be destroyed (seriously..not joking) because they weaken the species..(and dont even get me started on Persian cats, Pug dogs, and parrot cichlids..ugh..)
You cannot say that they weaken the species, I am sorry Scot. You are putting a trait on genes that simply is not there, basically you are personifying them. I am tired of the "good"/"bad" label because it simply is not applicable so let me use what geneticists use: "Fit", which brings us also to one of the single most misunderstood ideas in genetics/evolution, the idea of "Fitness".
A gene is "fit" only in relation to other variants (alleles) of that same gene it has nothing to do with the organism as a whole or how that gene relates to other genes.
So, genetically speaking, Wacky Traps (aka Bart Simpson) and Pugs and Persians and Parrot cichlids are all very much genetically fit because the genes for those traits
have survived the process of selection. I grant you that that selection was at the hand of "man" and not "nature" but that simply does not matter.
The species in and of itself is not weak. There are numerous other alleles of those genes out there and if the selective pressure switches then the unfit genes will be culled from the population and new ones will take their place.
and lots of other things that "genetics wanted that way" arent good either..
cancer, being born without arms or legs, downs syndrome..the list goes on an on..
just because its "caused by nature" doesnt necessarily mean its "the best of what nature intends"!
Again, genes do not want, they simply are. You must quit personifying them.
And for the record, cancer is actually the ultimate in fitness from a genetic stand point. Immortality is the ultimate in "self-preservation".
IF these plants were NEVER allowed to cross with other VFT's, or if they were never allowed to flower or reproduce by any means other than vegetative reproduction..then you would be correct..
but we all know that is not the case..
therefore you are wrong..
they do "weaken the species" because the genes of the "deformed" varieties are continually mixed with other VFT genes, because people want to create even more "wacky" deformaties..
therefore I am right..these varieties weaken the species overall..because "un-natural" genes (gene combinations that would not exist without human intervention) are created and allowed to propagate..
Just because a mutant gene is present in a pool does not by default mean that pol is weakened. Again I point you back to the Sickle Cell gene, outside of malaria regions it is not a fit gene but within those malaria areas it is most certainly a fit gene, and purging it from those populations would actually hurt them. I can think of many other cases where the presence of a mutant gene actually ended up conferring a fitness unto a population by its presence.
So, you cannot correctly say that mutant individuals will, by default, harm the population.
I am on Scot's side here. I am no expert on whether or not "cup traps" are genetically weaker; but if they are then breeding them in cultivation is making a population of weaker Dionaea. As long as plants bred with genetically mutated are being passed around then the genes are too. You could get plants that are D. genetically strong x D. genetic mutant and have a plant that appears like a standard Dionaea but still have the gentics to pass on in F1 or F2's.
That argument does not stand up to reason though. There are perfectly normal looking plants from perfectly normal looking parents that are in no way genetically related to "cup traps" and yet harbor "weakness" genes and could produce weak offspring. Whether a plant grows weakly is likely not the result of a single gene. Every year people are producing plants from crosses where they sow the seed out and a few years later the weak plants have died or been pulled but the strong plants are sent out to others likely carrying some of those same genes that made their siblings weak. And yet no one baulks about that.
I agree that mutants should be burned on site. I would be super angry if I got a plant with mutant genes in it and didn't learn about it until I crossed it and all the children were freakazoid weaklings. I wouldn't even want a seeds from a plant in a greenhouse with a mutant, unless I was assured beyond a reasonable doubt that the mutant had never flowered.
Obviously, the example above is exaggerated; but the outcome is the same.
The example hits a flaw though. While
you may not like those genes popping up in your collection some one else may. I can relate this back to a snake breeder who bred a couple snakes together looking for one result (piebald) and got out another (piebald, axanthic and piebald axanthic). He was not aware that either snake carried the axanthic gene but he was thrilled to discover they did.
When we are dealing with such things as "desirable" mutations there is always a level of subjectivity on what exactly is desirable. You do not like cup trap and I do. I do not like fused tooth and you do. So what happes is that I do not breed fused tooth plants and you do not breed cup traps and some people will want my plants and some people will want your traps and then one day someone who wants a fused tooth cup trap will get both of our plants and breed them together and get something new and unusual that will rock the VFT community. So while we each have our dislikes the genes behind those dislikes still have their fitness under the selective pressure of the collector. No "good". No "bad".