In article , Annabel
writes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Annabel wrote:



It has little or no effect
on the reproduction of species like bluebells, which use seed mainly
to propagate themselves to new areas.

If sufficient harvests from the wild are done then the species will
decline, note spectacular examples such as cod and whales

That is a strange analogy. We were talking about taking seed from plants
which produce an abundance of seed, with a low survival rate to
maturity. This is not the same as taking the whole plant, which is the
equivalent of harvesting cod or whales.

And, no, it has not helped
with the spread of Spanish bluebells - as the poster assumed, it
would probably reduce that effect.

Absolute rubbish, if genetically impure bluebells (when the impurity! is
dominant as is the case with spanish bluebells) are put itnto an area
with english bluebells the there is only one result and its certainly
not to reduce the effect of spanish bluebells

But that wasn't what was being discussed. What was being discussed was
introducing English bluebells into an area where there were none.


To all
Elsewhere in this thread I was asked if I could cite my sources, well I
cant at the moment, however when I asked in this very newsgroup a year
or so ago if I could remove bluebells from a private garden I was given
lots of advice that iirc included legal refs, and that technically you
cannot weed, kill vermin etc, that to remove something from property
you must have the landowners permission.

There's a difference between collecting seed and removing plants.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm