Conservation VS Herclivation

[Valrifell]

Species introduced to new areas have a high chance of becoming invasive and we don't really know why some species become invasive and harmful and why some don't. Better not to mess with that, because historically speaking, introducing new species intentionally has fucked things up. You'd actually be hard-pressed to find examples of humans introducing species to an isolated place that didn't irreparably fuck over some native ecosystem.

Hell, from what I know the earth worm isn't native to the Americas and that has had some nasty side-effects in certain circles. Nobody cares because the earth worm is beneficial to humans.

[Salus Maior]

Actually, Honeybees are kind of an invasive species that have spread diseases to the native pollinators of the Americas and have kind of been a problem.

Imagine, Europeans spreading disease to Native Americans.

[Xerographica]

Anyways, citing examples really doesn't prove that the consequences of introducing a new species are "almost always" negative.

It does, that's literally the whole point of providing evidence.

Imagine that you're arguing that the consequences of women voting are "almost always" negative. It isn't enough to simply cite a few examples of negative consequences. You should cite a study that comprehensively reviews how women voted in every election and it should be clear that the results are "almost always" negative.

Perhaps you're under the impression that nobody has comprehensively studied the consequences of introducing new species? In this case, it wouldn't make sense to look for something that you're sure doesn't exist. But then your belief would be based on a study that doesn't exist.

The invasive species that make the news are always going to be the ones with negative consequences. Just like with human immigrants, the news isn't going to report on all the immigrants who don't rape or rob or bomb people. So if you want to argue that the consequences of human immigration are "almost always" negative... then you need to cite a study that shows that 99 out of 100 immigrants commit a serious crime within a year of immigrating.

To be clear, I do acknowledge that there can be negative consequences of introducing species. But do you know how tiny orchid seeds are? Do you know how tiny fern spore is? It's not like the wind only carries these tiny seeds/spore to places where the plants are already established. If it was the case that 99 out of 100 new introductions have negative consequences, then there wouldn't be any biodiversity. But obviously there is biodiversity, some places are even super biodiverse. So it can't be the case that the consequences of immigration are "almost always" negative. This is simply because there are always unoccupied niches. Nature abhors unoccupied niches, and so should we. We should detest the fact that virtually all the trees in North America don't have epiphytes growing on them.

[Aggicificicerous]

Perhaps you're under the impression that nobody has comprehensively studied the consequences of introducing new species? In this case, it wouldn't make sense to look for something that you're sure doesn't exist. But then your belief would be based on a study that doesn't exist.

You have your heart in the right place, but interspecies interactions are extremely complex. Just conducting a study that thoroughly examines the consequences of introducing a single new species to an ecosystem is virtually impossible; even if you were to map out all the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of different interactions, you still can't be sure how the new species will react. Randomness plays a large part, and many introduced organisms can't adapt quickly enough and die. Most organisms, I would wager. Of those that survive, how will the ecosystem react? What will it look like in fifty years? It's impossible to know. Our understanding of life is not so advanced that we can plug everything into a computer and calculate the outcome, if such a computer program could ever be designed.

To be clear, I do acknowledge that there can be negative consequences of introducing species. But do you know how tiny orchid seeds are? Do you know how tiny fern spore is? It's not like the wind only carries these tiny seeds/spore to places where the plants are already established. If it was the case that 99 out of 100 new introductions have negative consequences, then there wouldn't be any biodiversity. But obviously there is biodiversity, some places are even super biodiverse. So it can't be the case that the consequences of immigration are "almost always" negative. This is simply because there are always unoccupied niches. Nature abhors unoccupied niches, and so should we. We should detest the fact that virtually all the trees in North America don't have epiphytes growing on them.

This doesn't make sense. If nature abhors an unoccupied niche, then unoccupied niches will get filled very quickly. Trees in North America have a plethora of organisms growing on them, from bacteria and other single-celled organisms to lichens and mosses to anthropods. If trees lack epiphytes, it is most likely because the epiphytes are not adapted to those trees in that habitat. You can try to propagate the boreal forests with bromeliads, but I doubt you'll have much success. Diversity is not some economic model that you can increase and increase. Habitats left on their own are by necessity efficient.

[Xerographica]

Perhaps you're under the impression that nobody has comprehensively studied the consequences of introducing new species? In this case, it wouldn't make sense to look for something that you're sure doesn't exist. But then your belief would be based on a study that doesn't exist.

You have your heart in the right place, but interspecies interactions are extremely complex. Just conducting a study that thoroughly examines the consequences of introducing a single new species to an ecosystem is virtually impossible; even if you were to map out all the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of different interactions, you still can't be sure how the new species will react. Randomness plays a large part, and many introduced organisms can't adapt quickly enough and die. Most organisms, I would wager. Of those that survive, how will the ecosystem react? What will it look like in fifty years? It's impossible to know. Our understanding of life is not so advanced that we can plug everything into a computer and calculate the outcome, if such a computer program could ever be designed.

It is pretty complex...

I have, also, reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have lately tried, I have found that the visits of bees are necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of clover; but humble-bees alone visit the red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that "more than two-thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England." Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman says, "Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice." Hence it is quite credible that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district! - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

To be clear, I do acknowledge that there can be negative consequences of introducing species. But do you know how tiny orchid seeds are? Do you know how tiny fern spore is? It's not like the wind only carries these tiny seeds/spore to places where the plants are already established. If it was the case that 99 out of 100 new introductions have negative consequences, then there wouldn't be any biodiversity. But obviously there is biodiversity, some places are even super biodiverse. So it can't be the case that the consequences of immigration are "almost always" negative. This is simply because there are always unoccupied niches. Nature abhors unoccupied niches, and so should we. We should detest the fact that virtually all the trees in North America don't have epiphytes growing on them.

This doesn't make sense. If nature abhors an unoccupied niche, then unoccupied niches will get filled very quickly. Trees in North America have a plethora of organisms growing on them, from bacteria and other single-celled organisms to lichens and mosses to anthropods. If trees lack epiphytes, it is most likely because the epiphytes are not adapted to those trees in that habitat. You can try to propagate the boreal forests with bromeliads, but I doubt you'll have much success. Diversity is not some economic model that you can increase and increase. Habitats left on their own are by necessity efficient.

"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.

Perhaps it would help if you explain where you draw the line and why you draw it there. Let's say that you're walking in a forest where Spanish moss grows the furthest north. You spot a big clump of it on the ground. It will die if left on the ground... would you pick it up and put it on a nearby branch?

[Aggicificicerous]

"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.

Not sure why you're quoting Darwin at me, but the movement of epiphytes is tied to the changing climate. Temperatures are rising, and organisms are moving north in response. We have no reason to want to speed this up, even if we were ridiculous enough to not want to halt climate change. Just because you love epiphytes doesn't mean there aren't consequences what's happening; species we now considered native are going to be pushed out and possibly become extirpated. Remember that niche thing you harped on about so lovingly? Well it turns out that when one species succeeds in filling a niche, other species fail and perish.

Perhaps it would help if you explain where you draw the line and why you draw it there. Let's say that you're walking in a forest where Spanish moss grows the furthest north. You spot a big clump of it on the ground. It will die if left on the ground... would you pick it up and put it on a nearby branch?

Maybe. Probably not.

[The Holy Therns]

"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.

Nature doesn't want things.

[Xerographica]

"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.

Not sure why you're quoting Darwin at me, but the movement of epiphytes is tied to the changing climate. Temperatures are rising, and organisms are moving north in response. We have no reason to want to speed this up, even if we were ridiculous enough to not want to halt climate change.

The Darwin quote nicely illustrates your point about the complexity of interactions.

Ummm... the movement of epiphytes is tied to climate change? Well yeah, climate is always changing and organisms adapt/migrate or go extinct. Were you specifically referring to anthropogenic climate change? If so, when did you think it started? And when do you think the epiphyte race to Canada started?

Just because you love epiphytes doesn't mean there aren't consequences what's happening; species we now considered native are going to be pushed out and possibly become extirpated. Remember that niche thing you harped on about so lovingly? Well it turns out that when one species succeeds in filling a niche, other species fail and perish.

Which species are the three tropical epiphytes in America pushing out?

Aggregations comprised of organisms as disparate as barnacles, coral reef fish, and moist tropical forest trees where epiphyte loads may help promote gaps (Strong 1977) all maintain associations in part through lottery-like rotations that prevent competitive exclusion. Dense packing is possible because none of the resident populations is sufficiently mobile or fecund to prevent coexistence. Communities persist because vacant sites (regenerative niches) are usually filled by the first propagule to arrive, an event that does not favor one parent species over another. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Overgrowth of one plant by another is exceptional; instability seems to be too great and living space too fragmented to allow even the most aggressive epiphyte to match the expansion over large areas achieved by many a terrestrial via seeds or ramets. Thus epiphyte synusiae are, perhaps more than some others, shaped by disturbance and patchiness rather than by competition. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

The disproportionate proliferation of epiphytes compared to plants of several other habits makes yet another case for the promotive effects of tree crowns as sites for cladogenesis. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Within a forest, total bark surface greatly exceeds that of ground area and can be more densely packed with plants. Rooting media in canopies are also diverse, although whether more or less so than soil is unclear. In effect, tree crowns may be especially permissive habitats that foster dense species packing for vascular and nonvascular plants alike. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Very likely, much of the epiphyte synusia is not yet saturated with either biomass or taxa, even in tropical America; perhaps insufficient stock limits colonization everywhere, but especially in the paleotropics. Too few lineages have evolved adequate stress tolerance for a broader epiphyte presence in seasonal woodlands. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Imagine if every tree in the world was epiphytically enriched. What do you think would happen to anthropogenic climate change?

[Xerographica]

"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.

Nature doesn't want things.

Nature wants us to colonize space.

[The Holy Therns]

Nature doesn't want things.

Nature wants us to colonize space.

I can't even tell if this is a joke or just another ridiculous statement.

[Aggicificicerous]

Ummm... the movement of epiphytes is tied to climate change? Well yeah, climate is always changing and organisms adapt/migrate or go extinct. Were you specifically referring to anthropogenic climate change? If so, when did you think it started? And when do you think the epiphyte race to Canada started?

Of course I was referring to anthropogenic climate change; it is occurring far faster than the climate regularly changes, which is what will lead to a whole lot of extirpation and extinction. That's a net loss of biodiversity.

Which species are the three tropical epiphytes in America pushing out?

You said it yourself: every niche must be filled. New species coming in means old species being pushed out. Moreso will be the effects of the changing climate in pushing out organisms and destroying symbiotic relationships, however.

If you want a list of all the forest organisms in southern Canada, I'm not going to humour you. You can look for that yourself. Here's a few of them including some native Canadian epiphytes.
http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/temprain.htm

If you're interested in reading up on ecological succession and symbiotic relationships, which I recommend, here's a few resources to get started.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317043/ (the section on lichen should be particularly relevant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession

This book is pretty good. I'd suggest reading the bits on succession. https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=73 ... &q&f=false

Imagine if every tree in the world was epiphytically enriched. What do you think would happen to anthropogenic climate change?

Trees are already epiphytically enriched. The natural world is efficient by necessity; if a niche exists, it will be filled. If a tree has no epiphytes, it most likely means that epiphytes couldn't survive.

[Costa Fierro]

Imagine that you're arguing that the consequences of women voting are "almost always" negative. It isn't enough to simply cite a few examples of negative consequences.

It is enough. "Comprehensive studies" is your speak for "I have firmly entrenched beliefs and no amount of evidence will prove me otherwise".

If you're only interested in sycophancy, go to Facebook.

[Luziyca]

I imagine one would have to be careful lest new species choke out the native flora and fauna via competition for the same resources.

Agreed.

Let's learn from where NZ and Australia fucked up when importing European species to their lands.

[Xerographica]

Ummm... the movement of epiphytes is tied to climate change? Well yeah, climate is always changing and organisms adapt/migrate or go extinct. Were you specifically referring to anthropogenic climate change? If so, when did you think it started? And when do you think the epiphyte race to Canada started?

Of course I was referring to anthropogenic climate change; it is occurring far faster than the climate regularly changes, which is what will lead to a whole lot of extirpation and extinction. That's a net loss of biodiversity.

But the epiphyte race to Canada started way before anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Will ACC make it harder for the contestants to reach Canada? Maybe.

Which species are the three tropical epiphytes in America pushing out?

You said it yourself: every niche must be filled. New species coming in means old species being pushed out. Moreso will be the effects of the changing climate in pushing out organisms and destroying symbiotic relationships, however.

If you want a list of all the forest organisms in southern Canada, I'm not going to humour you. You can look for that yourself. Here's a few of them including some native Canadian epiphytes.
http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/temprain.htm

If you're interested in reading up on ecological succession and symbiotic relationships, which I recommend, here's a few resources to get started.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317043/ (the section on lichen should be particularly relevant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession

This book is pretty good. I'd suggest reading the bits on succession. https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=73 ... &q&f=false

Ummm, I'm not sure what happened. I shared several passages that explained that, unlike with terrestrial plants, with epiphytes it's not a zero sum game...

Aggregations comprised of organisms as disparate as barnacles, coral reef fish, and moist tropical forest trees where epiphyte loads may help promote gaps (Strong 1977) all maintain associations in part through lottery-like rotations that prevent competitive exclusion. Dense packing is possible because none of the resident populations is sufficiently mobile or fecund to prevent coexistence. Communities persist because vacant sites (regenerative niches) are usually filled by the first propagule to arrive, an event that does not favor one parent species over another. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Overgrowth of one plant by another is exceptional; instability seems to be too great and living space too fragmented to allow even the most aggressive epiphyte to match the expansion over large areas achieved by many a terrestrial via seeds or ramets. Thus epiphyte synusiae are, perhaps more than some others, shaped by disturbance and patchiness rather than by competition. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

The disproportionate proliferation of epiphytes compared to plants of several other habits makes yet another case for the promotive effects of tree crowns as sites for cladogenesis. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Within a forest, total bark surface greatly exceeds that of ground area and can be more densely packed with plants. Rooting media in canopies are also diverse, although whether more or less so than soil is unclear. In effect, tree crowns may be especially permissive habitats that foster dense species packing for vascular and nonvascular plants alike. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Very likely, much of the epiphyte synusia is not yet saturated with either biomass or taxa, even in tropical America; perhaps insufficient stock limits colonization everywhere, but especially in the paleotropics. Too few lineages have evolved adequate stress tolerance for a broader epiphyte presence in seasonal woodlands. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

Did you not read these passages? Or did you not understand them?

Imagine if every tree in the world was epiphytically enriched. What do you think would happen to anthropogenic climate change?

Trees are already epiphytically enriched. The natural world is efficient by necessity; if a niche exists, it will be filled. If a tree has no epiphytes, it most likely means that epiphytes couldn't survive.

I think you have some fundamental misunderstanding of how the natural world works. Epiphytes most likely started out in environments with year around warmth and rain. Over time they started adapting to colder/hotter/drier environments. Now there are some epiphytic orchids that grow on cactus and other epiphytic orchids that can handle freezing temps. Each day there are countless epiphytic orchids that are being naturally selected for tolerance to heat/cold/drought. The survivors are able to colonize more and more stressful habitats.

So no, just because a tree doesn't already have an orchid growing on it doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't have an orchid growing on it. The issue is whether we want to facilitate the process of adaptive radiation.

[Xerographica]

Nature wants us to colonize space.

I can't even tell if this is a joke or just another ridiculous statement.

It's neither. Are you going to argue that Nature doesn't want us to colonize space?

[Costa Fierro]

Species introduced to new areas have a high chance of becoming invasive and we don't really know why some species become invasive and harmful and why some don't.

It really depends on a lot of variables. Invasive animal species for example will take into account food sources, available competition for said food sources, and specialisation. Plants will become invasive if they have the right growing conditions and soils, and are good for hardiness. Same for insects, arachnids, even organisms like algae.

Believe it or not, some animals are self-colonising. One bird species in New Zealand for example has a name in Te Reo which means "little stranger", implying that when Maori first arrived, this bird was not present within the ecosystems that existed in New Zealand at that time. The only conclusion is that it came into the country by itself. The same thing applies to the establishment of breeding colonies of barn owls in the upper North Island.

[The Holy Therns]

I can't even tell if this is a joke or just another ridiculous statement.

It's neither. Are you going to argue that Nature doesn't want us to colonize space?

Again, nature doesn't want things.

[Esternial]

It's neither. Are you going to argue that Nature doesn't want us to colonize space?

Again, nature doesn't want things.

"I don't want anything"

"You sure?"

"Yes"

"OK."

"OMG YOU DIDN'T GET ME ANYTHING"

*volcano erupts*

[The Holy Therns]

Again, nature doesn't want things.

"I don't want anything"

"You sure?"

"Yes"

"OK."

"OMG YOU DIDN'T GET ME ANYTHING"

*volcano erupts*

That's not nature, that's me.

[Esternial]

"I don't want anything"

"You sure?"

"Yes"

"OK."

"OMG YOU DIDN'T GET ME ANYTHING"

*volcano erupts*

That's not nature, that's me.

That's why when you get angry some people call your rage a "force of nature".

[Aggicificicerous]

But the epiphyte race to Canada started way before anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Will ACC make it harder for the contestants to reach Canada? Maybe.

Easier most likely.

Ummm, I'm not sure what happened. I shared several passages that explained that, unlike with terrestrial plants, with epiphytes it's not a zero sum game...


Did you not read these passages? Or did you not understand them?

If the climate shifts in favour of the non-native species, it's also shifting against the native species.

I think you have some fundamental misunderstanding of how the natural world works. Epiphytes most likely started out in environments with year around warmth and rain. Over time they started adapting to colder/hotter/drier environments. Now there are some epiphytic orchids that grow on cactus and other epiphytic orchids that can handle freezing temps. Each day there are countless epiphytic orchids that are being naturally selected for tolerance to heat/cold/drought. The survivors are able to colonize more and more stressful habitats.

So no, just because a tree doesn't already have an orchid growing on it doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't have an orchid growing on it. The issue is whether we want to facilitate the process of adaptive radiation.

Already addressed this above: you're thinking in terms of the biotic, not the abiotic. Furthermore, the shifting climate brings in other species besides a few epiphytes. Did you really imagine it's just three plants moving north?

You're just thinking of stacking more and more species on top of each other because you have this bizarre notion that more is always better, but if it was so much better, it would have already happened. Nature is not random. Evolution is a guided process. Epiphytes are extremely beneficial to diversity within their established niches; introducing them as non-natives is not necessarily beneficial to the native biome, especially considering the other species that would inevitably follow in a warming world. Just throwing out some cherry-picked quotes means nothing when you don't understand their context.

[Xerographica]

But the epiphyte race to Canada started way before anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Will ACC make it harder for the contestants to reach Canada? Maybe.

Easier most likely.

This summer it got to be 114F degrees here where I live. Do you know what happened to my epiphytes? They baked. They fried. They cooked. However, they weren't equally harmed by the extreme heat, because they are all different. Plus, they are also in different locations in the garden. Variation is a good thing. It's the best thing. There's no progress without difference.

You're just thinking of stacking more and more species on top of each other because you have this bizarre notion that more is always better, but if it was so much better, it would have already happened.

It IS happening! According to this page, Florida has around 20 species of epiphytic orchids. Do you think this number has always been the same? Do you think it will always be the same? A million years ago Florida had 20 species of epiphytic orchids? In a million years Florida will still only have 20 species of epiphytic orchids?

[Aggicificicerous]

This summer it got to be 114F degrees here where I live. Do you know what happened to my epiphytes? They baked. They fried. They cooked. However, they weren't equally harmed by the extreme heat, because they are all different. Plus, they are also in different locations in the garden. Variation is a good thing. It's the best thing. There's no progress without difference.

Not seeing how a few plants in your controlled garden environment (in Florida?) are relevant to the overall movement of plants north.

It IS happening! According to this page, Florida has around 20 species of epiphytic orchids. Do you think this number has always been the same? Do you think it will always be the same? A million years ago Florida had 20 species of epiphytic orchids? In a million years Florida will still only have 20 species of epiphytic orchids?

It looks like you're just rambling to yourself now.

[Xerographica]

This summer it got to be 114F degrees here where I live. Do you know what happened to my epiphytes? They baked. They fried. They cooked. However, they weren't equally harmed by the extreme heat, because they are all different. Plus, they are also in different locations in the garden. Variation is a good thing. It's the best thing. There's no progress without difference.

Not seeing how a few plants in your controlled garden environment (in Florida?) are relevant to the overall movement of plants north.

You said that ACC will most likely make it easier for tropical epiphytes to reach Canada. I gave a counter example of how extreme heat here in Southern California adversely affected my epiphytes.

It IS happening! According to this page, Florida has around 20 species of epiphytic orchids. Do you think this number has always been the same? Do you think it will always be the same? A million years ago Florida had 20 species of epiphytic orchids? In a million years Florida will still only have 20 species of epiphytic orchids?

It looks like you're just rambling to yourself now.

I'm saying that Florida should have a lot more than 20 species of epiphytic orchids, and you're saying that it shouldn't. Correct? So why shouldn't Florida have more species of epiphytic orchids? Why is the status quo more beneficial than more biodiversity?

[Aggicificicerous]

You said that ACC will most likely make it easier for tropical epiphytes to reach Canada. I gave a counter example of how extreme heat here in Southern California adversely affected my epiphytes.

I'll double check my world map to see if Canada and Southern California are at the same latitude.

I'm saying that Florida should have a lot more than 20 species of epiphytic orchids, and you're saying that it shouldn't. Correct? So why shouldn't Florida have more species of epiphytic orchids? Why is the status quo more beneficial than more biodiversity?

I said nothing of the sort. What a bizarre assumption.