Plants The sixth sense

From: "brian williams" pugturd50 at hotmail.com> on 2002.01.31 at 17:17:59(8108) Well, I have been around plants my whole life and have been paying a lot of attention to how they grow. I am sure some of you have theories on this sixth sense they seem to have. I would like to hear what collectors and botanist think. Here are some of the thinks I am talking about. The plant monstera deliciosa I have planted in a large pot with a totem. Well, I decided to fertilize the two plants beside it for no real reason some slow release fertilize. after about 3 to 4 weeks monstera had shoot two roots in to both pots directly on to the fertilize. Now how the heck did it know it was there? I have noticed root go all across the floor to get to water as well as roots reaching out to grab wall that are a foot away. The seem no to be growing blindly as some would think. Any one know where there eyes are? Not to mention orchids and other plants impersonating other creatures in order to have them pollinate there flowers. A lot say evolution with the plant and insects that's hard for me to buy. Any ways how did the plant find out what the insect looked like and its colors? But I would he interested in hearing what you all thing about this. My poor father on the other hand seems to bring aliens into the picture if its unexplainable. Its a little scary but what's ever scarier is when other plant nuts agree and understand him LOL. Well, I am sure there are other strange things that all plants do but it just seems there is some kind of extras sense we don't know about? Love you hear the crazy theories. +More _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

From: Krzysztof Kozminski kk at kozminski.com> on 2002.01.31 at 22:23:10(8111) On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, brian williams wrote: > Not to mention orchids and other plants impersonating other creatures in > order to have them pollinate there flowers. A lot say evolution with the > plant and insects that's hard for me to buy. Any ways how did the plant find > out what the insect looked like and its colors? This one is easy. Evolutions in nature is passive and cruel; the plants find things out by either propagating themselves or dying with no progeny. Plants produce slightly differing flowers all the time. The ones looking more attractive to the pollinators set more seed, the ones looking ugly (to the pollinators), do not. Eventually the ugly ones die out. Roots may be able to seek water by growing by sensing higher humidity, and growing in that direction (evolution took care of those who tried to grow them elsewhere). I may be wrong here... KK +More ==================== "Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking" Krzysztof Kozminski kk@kozminski.com http://www.kozminski.com/

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2002.02.01 at 03:56:18(8113) In a message dated Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:18:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, "brian williams" writes: > Well, I have been around plants my whole life and have been paying a lot > of attention to how they grow. I am sure some of you have theories on this > sixth sense they seem to have. "Sixth" sense? So what are a plant's other 5 senses? > The plant monstera deliciosa I have planted in a large pot with a totem. > Well, I decided to fertilize the two plants beside it for no real reason > some slow release fertilize. after about 3 to 4 weeks monstera had shoot two > roots in to both pots directly on to the fertilize. Now how the heck did it > know it was there? > Probably chemical particles in the air. Plant roots are designed to seek out nutrient particles in the soil, so detecting similar particles in the air is but a small step. > I have noticed root go all across the floor to get to water as well as roots > reaching out to grab wall that are a foot away. The seem no to be growing > blindly as some would think. Any one know where there eyes are? > Chloroplasts. How else would plants "know" which way to turn toward the sun? Seeking darkness is common in the seedling stages of many climbing aroids. > Not to mention orchids and other plants impersonating other creatures in > order to have them pollinate there flowers. A lot say evolution with the > plant and insects that's hard for me to buy. Any ways how did the plant find > out what the insect looked like and its colors? It didn't have to, any more than a lichen-mimic moth needs to know it looks like lichen. In the case of the moth, start with a population of variously-colored moths who instinctively rest on lichen-covered tree trunks; then, those who happen to look most like lichens would be the survivors. In the case of the plant, the same general principle operates. > Jason Hernandez +More Naturalist-at-Large

From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2002.02.01 at 03:56:28(8114) Howdy All, It's interesting seeing someone else writing about this as it has been something that intrigued me for a long time. My particular thing that stood out is that certain vines have tiny yellow nodules on their stems, that mimic the eggs of their main predator. They are the right size, shape and colour. The predator comes along, sees these eggs and thinks that its brethren has already been there and therefore they do not lay their own eggs there. My thoughts on that were..... I know that the fittest survive and therefore go on to reproduce, but the natural chances of a particular vine producing nodules that mimic the eggs of their only predator is phenomenally small. There has to be some way that they register the presence of these eggs and more importantly their COLOUR. Nodules occuring naturally on a wine is "relatively" possible I suppose, but then colouring the same colour and shade as the eggs? How is this explained? I cannot see any other explanation than that they have some method of sensing their surroundings in a far more thorough method than we realise, including colours. Certainly is something to think about. Cheers. Paul Tyerman +More Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8/9 mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Cyclamen, Crocus, Cyrtanthus, Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that doesn't move!!!!!

From: Alektra at aol.com on 2002.02.01 at 14:59:31(8115) Selective breeding is incredibly detailed. There is a crab in Japan which has the design of a very detailed medieval Japanese helmet on its back. It is known that fishermen habitually threw back the crabs with helmet-like markings. As time went on, the fishermen got more picky, because more and more of the crabs started to have more and more detailed helmet designs. Eventually the design became startlingly detailed. So, there was natural selection for nodules, and then there was natural selection for yellow nodules-- or perhaps by chance, there was a plant with yellow nodules that survived, thrived, and multiplied. Natural selection is every bit as tough as a plantsman who culls his seedlings. +More In a message dated 2/1/2 3:57:03 AM, ptyerman@ozemail.com.au writes: << My thoughts on that were..... I know that the fittest survive and therefore go on to reproduce, but the natural chances of a particular vine producing nodules that mimic the eggs of their only predator is phenomenally small. There has to be some way that they register the presence of these eggs and more importantly their COLOUR. Nodules occuring naturally on a wine is "relatively" possible I suppose, but then colouring the same colour and shade as the eggs? How is this explained? I cannot see any other explanation than that they have some method of sensing their surroundings in a far more thorough method than we realise, including colours. >>

From: Krzysztof Kozminski kk at kozminski.com> on 2002.02.01 at 15:01:53(8116) On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Paul Tyerman wrote: > My particular thing that stood out is that certain vines have tiny yellow > nodules on their stems, that mimic the eggs of their main predator. [...]> +More > My thoughts on that were..... I know that the fittest survive and therefore > go on to reproduce, but the natural chances of a particular vine producing > nodules that mimic the eggs of their only predator is phenomenally small. > There has to be some way that they register the presence of these eggs and > more importantly their COLOUR. Nodules occuring naturally on a wine is > "relatively" possible I suppose, but then colouring the same colour and > shade as the eggs? How is this explained? The ones with nodules of wrong color/shape got eaten by the predators before they managed to set seed, and aren't seen much any more.... KK ==================== "Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking" Krzysztof Kozminski kk@kozminski.com http://www.kozminski.com/

From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2002.02.01 at 15:02:06(8117) > >The ones with nodules of wrong color/shape got eaten by the predators >before they managed to set seed, and aren't seen much any more.... > >KK Howdy KK, I realise that should be the way it works, but why sprout those nodules in the first place? If they do sprout them, why colour them differently to the stem? Allowing for this all to be entirely coincidental it must mean that just about every possible variation of a plant has existed at some point in time to be able to reproduce itself. I think it is highly unlikely that ANY permutation of an Amorphophallus (for example) is going to head in the direction of looking like the fly that pollinates it, regardless of how many million years you leave it. So why does a particular orchid look so much like it's pollinator to the point that you can mistakenly at a first glance think that it is a wasp sitting on the flower, rather than it being the flower itself? What made the orchid head in that direction in the first place? Personally, I think it is just interesting to discuss the options. It just seems so odd for such specialised items to appear naturally without any awareness of surroundings. Cheers. Paul Tyerman +More Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8/9 mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Cyclamen, Crocus, Cyrtanthus, Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that doesn't move!!!!!

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2002.02.01 at 15:02:17(8118) but the natural chances of a particular vine producing >nodules that mimic the eggs of their only predator is phenomenally small. >There has to be some way that they register the presence of these eggs and >more importantly their COLOUR. Nodules occuring naturally on a wine is >"relatively" possible I suppose, but then colouring the same colour and >shade as the eggs? How is this explained? I cannot see any other >explanation than that they have some method of sensing their surroundings >in a far more thorough method than we realise, including colours. The explination is that these chance differences are chosen out, not in thousands of years but over billions of years. Many, Many trial and error scenarios may occur over such a time period. Neil

From: Durightmm at aol.com on 2002.02.01 at 16:04:01(8120) These scientific explanations make sense to scientist but not always to non scientist. For example we seem to be losing sight of the topic "sense" Writers want to know "How" an organism "knows" it's surroundings. How does the vine know. it's peers are being eaten. How does the crab know to design it's nodules to discourage harvesting. How did Amorphos morph their flowers to attract sprecific beetle to pollinate each species. Isn't it wonderful that we have yet to unravel mysteries. and have additional topics for aroidl Joe

From: Iza & Carol Goroff goroff at idcnet.com> on 2002.02.01 at 21:07:20(8121) Two very separate phenomena are presented here. 1. The crab does not "know" to present a helmet design. only from a large population are the few which look most like a helmet are chosen. That's evolution. 2. An already evolved plant has evolved mechanisms to seek those factors which it needs for its individual survival (for the propagation of more of its species), such as seeking water, and perhaps "smelling" and seeking nitrogenous materials. These mechanisms include phototropism, geotropism, and in vines seeking their support through reverse phototropism. Neither implies a sixth sense in the sense of "knowing". Iza Goroff +More Whitewater Wisconsin USA zone 4b Durightmm@aol.com wrote: These scientific explanations make sense to scientist but not always to non scientist. For example we seem to be losing sight of the topic "sense" Writers want to know "How" an organism "knows" it's surroundings. How does the vine know. it's peers are being eaten. How does the crab know to design it's nodules to discourage harvesting. How did Amorphos morph their flowers to attract sprecific beetle to pollinate each species. Isn't it wonderful that we have yet to unravel mysteries. and have additional topics for aroidl Joe

From: Jill Bell jbell_buxton at yahoo.com> on 2002.02.01 at 21:10:00(8122) Hey, Do any of you remember the book (from the seventies) called the Secret Life of Plants? It was based on lie detector experimentation done on plants to test their "feelings" about things, done by Robert Baxter, an ex-FBI agent? Jill +More __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com

From: Piabinha at aol.com on 2002.02.01 at 21:10:56(8123) > The explination is that these chance differences are chosen out, not in > thousands of years but over billions of years. Many, Many trial and error > scenarios may occur over such a time period. billions? all you need are thousands of years. the speciation of haplochromine cichlids in lake victoria (from one species to over 300 species) took just a few thousand years. a blink of an eye in biological time. tsuh yang

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2002.02.01 at 22:13:20(8125) What is 'knowing?' Could an answer be in the interpretation of the meaning of the word, knowing? To know, does one have to have a brain, a mind? Or may 'knowing' be seen as something more inclusive? Food for thought, nothing more, nothing less. Betsy +More Iza & Carol Goroff wrote: Two very separate phenomena are presented here. 1. The crab does not "know" to present a helmet design. only from a large population are the few which look most like a helmet are chosen. That's evolution. 2. An already evolved plant has evolved mechanisms to seek those factors which it needs for its individual survival (for the propagation of more of its species), such as seeking water, and perhaps "smelling" and seeking nitrogenous materials. These mechanisms include phototropism, geotropism, and in vines seeking their support through reverse phototropism. Neither implies a sixth sense in the sense of "knowing". Iza Goroff Whitewater Wisconsin USA zone 4b Durightmm@aol.com wrote: These scientific explanations make sense to scientist but not always to non scientist. For example we seem to be losing sight of the topic "sense" Writers want to know "How" an organism "knows" it's surroundings. How does the vine know. it's peers are being eaten. How does the crab know to design it's nodules to discourage harvesting. How did Amorphos morph their flowers to attract sprecific beetle to pollinate each species. Isn't it wonderful that we have yet to unravel mysteries. and have additional topics for aroidl Joe

From: "Plantsman" plantsman at prodigy.net> on 2002.02.02 at 04:46:49(8126) ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Plants The sixth sense : : The explination is that these chance differences are chosen out, not in +More : thousands of years but over billions of years. Many, Many trial and error : scenarios may occur over such a time period. : : Neil : *************************************** You may call me old fashioned, but I have a hard time swallowing that "evolutionary" events of this type cover billions of years. I find it hard to imagine that the earth's distance from the sun wouldn't have changed over such a long time span. Small amounts, either closer or nearer, would prohibit life as we know it from existing. Thermodynamics. Why do we not notice these "experiments" by plants or animals occurring today or since science has kept up with things. I mean, with the large propagation firms that exist, you'd think that occasionally things like this would show up. Now, I'm not talking about abnormal or defective parts, but actual new variations, i.e., the "eggs on the roots". The real question is what induced such things to occur in the first place, not natural selection, which would occur later. An example of this is why do we have two lungs, two eyes, two kidneys? Why not three or just one? These basic precepts occur in all mammals, not just humans. Take cattle for example, as they have been domesticated in massive amounts for millennia. They have changed physically in size, shape, color & etc., slightly due to selective breeding, but they are all still are cloven hoofed furry animals that moo. Their udders haven't begun to relocate nor have they begun development of canine teeth (or any meaningful upper front teeth for that matter). They've always been ruminants with multiple stomachs and it doesn't look like that will ever change. No changes that would distinguish them as another or new developing species have occurred. This is the case for all animals that are known to exist currently. Elephants are very much the same as they were three thousand years ago. Even in the case of Metasequoia glyptostroides (Chinese Redwood), it remains unchanged from the fossil record. Also the Coelacanth fish and Alligator for that matter. Just to add fuel to the fire: I heard awhile back that some scientists hypothesize that basically all species alive today have always been around and other, less flexible cousins became extinct for various reasons over time. Perhaps most ancient plants and animals will always be unknown due to fossilization never occurring or never being found. We may have only discovered a tiny amount of species that have existed and just got lucky with what we have. Scientists can't even agree on the dating methods of fossils. In any event, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I just have faith in the Original Designer's handiwork. Please no flames, just thoughtful discussion. David Sizemore Kingsport, TN

From: Durightmm at aol.com on 2002.02.02 at 04:48:07(8127) Knowing is awareness and so far there is no indication plabts are aware. How can that be measured? Perhaps in time plants will reveal that. Rregardless no one should be less in awe at these fantastic creatures. And I expect a challenge to that last one. Joe

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2002.02.02 at 04:48:29(8129) > >I think it is highly unlikely that ANY permutation of an Amorphophallus >(for example) is going to head in the direction of looking like the fly >that pollinates it, regardless of how many million years you leave it. No, but it certainly has developed a smell which the fly that pollinates is highly attracted to. Pollination is not the only character that would be subject to natural selection. Large leaves are selected for plants which are perpetually in low light to gather more light. Those with small leaves were left behind. So >why does a particular orchid look so much like it's pollinator to the point >that you can mistakenly at a first glance think that it is a wasp sitting >on the flower, rather than it being the flower itself? What made the >orchid head in that direction in the first place? They did not chose what direction to go in, they only develop and change in the direction that their environments choose. Sometimes mutations and/or hybrid swarms may develop and stabilize into a new spieces, thus skipping several tens of thousands of years of natural selection. Orchids that are pollinated by 'pseudocopulation' (bug mimics) are at the cutting edge of millions of years of evolution. When you think of the sheer legth of time (millions of years) that these plants had to try out the various combinations and permutaions...it is not such a stretch. The point that natural selection can be sped along by chance mutations or hybridizations also shows that time can be compressed and many combinations and permutations are skipped over. But the survivors still have to survive. Sudden geological changes can also promote new "trys" at evolution. The inundation of the Panamanian Isthmus was not that long ago in evolutionary time, yet due to the isolation of many mountain tops into islands, a great deal of endemism occured there in a short (realitivly speaking) time. +More You all must look a little deeper for what is plausable or not. Neil

From: araceae at earthlink.net on 2002.02.02 at 04:48:40(8130) Title: Re: Plants The sixth sense "Knowing"??? Try, in this instance, the biblical definition... It is part of 'natural selection'. Dewey +More What is 'knowing?' Could an answer be in the interpretation of the meaning of the word, knowing? To know, does one have to have a brain, a mind? Or may 'knowing' be seen as something more inclusive? Food for thought, nothing more, nothing less. Betsy Iza & Carol Goroff wrote: Two very separate phenomena are presented here. 1. The crab does not "know" to present a helmet design. only from a large population are the few which look most like a helmet are chosen. That's evolution. 2. An already evolved plant has evolved mechanisms to seek those factors which it needs for its individual survival (for the propagation of more of its species), such as seeking water, and perhaps "smelling" and seeking nitrogenous materials. These mechanisms include phototropism, geotropism, and in vines seeking their support through reverse phototropism. Neither implies a sixth sense in the sense of "knowing". Iza Goroff Whitewater Wisconsin USA zone 4b Durightmm@aol.com wrote: These scientific explanations make sense to scientist but not always to non scientist. For example we seem to be losing sight of the topic "sense" Writers want to know "How" an organism "knows" it's surroundings. How does the vine know. it's peers are being eaten. How does the crab know to design it's nodules to discourage harvesting. How did Amorphos morph their flowers to attract sprecific beetle to pollinate each species. Isn't it wonderful that we have yet to unravel mysteries. and have additional topics for aroidl Joe

From: "julius boos" ju-bo at msn.com> on 2002.02.02 at 16:23:15(8133) > The explination is that these chance differences are chosen out, not in > thousands of years but over billions of years. Many, Many trial and error > scenarios may occur over such a time period. +More >>billions? all you need are thousands of years. the speciation of haplochromine cichlids in lake victoria (from one species to over 300 species) took just a few thousand years. a blink of an eye in biological time. tsuh yang<< Even more rapid is what I refer to as the 'vegetative evoloution' in aroids! Buy a plant of Xanthosma atrovirens (the one with the little 'frills' on the underside of the leaf blade) and watch it happen before your very eyes from one 'pup' to the next. Taro (Colocasia esculanta) is another 'quicke'---- the Hawaiians produced over 200 cultivars which are VERY different one to the other in just a few thousand years, and if we did not know better may/could be described as different 'species' by the unknowing, and by vegetative selection!! A VERY short 'blink' indeed. Julius

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2002.02.02 at 16:24:26(8134) >You may call me old fashioned, but I have a hard time swallowing >that "evolutionary" events of this type cover billions of years. I >find it hard to imagine that the earth's distance from the sun >wouldn't have changed over such a long time span. Small amounts, >either closer or nearer, would prohibit life as we know it from >existing. Thermodynamics. +More Yes, Yes, billions was too much time I meant to say millions. But on the other hand billions of years would not have made that much difference in the distance of the earth from the sun. but our axis does rotate slightly off axis on a cycle of 36,000 years causing a fairly regular ice age. > >Why do we not notice these "experiments" by plants or animals >occurring today or since science has kept up with things. I mean, >with the large propagation firms that exist, you'd think that >occasionally things like this would show up. Actually a simple experiment which can naturally choose over a short period of time is given in many basic texts on the subject....that is ....... the dandylions in your lawn eventually only flower on short peduncles because the mower keeps cutting off the ones with long peduncles. Also the amount of time that science has 'kept up with things' is really no time at all. A few hundred years in absolutly nothing in the time span of evoluntion. An example of this is why do we have two lungs, >two eyes, two kidneys? Why not three or just one? These basic >precepts occur in all mammals, not just humans. Cells split into two not one or three. symetry is tried and true. No changes that would distinguish >them as another or new developing species have occurred. This is >the case for all animals that are known to exist currently. >Elephants are very much the same as they were three thousand years >ago. Three thousand years is less than a blink of an eye. Even in the case of Metasequoia glyptostroides (Chinese >Redwood), it remains unchanged from the fossil record. Also the >Coelacanth fish and Alligator for that matter. Some designs are so "perfect" or adaptable that they survive the test of time. You forgot the cockroach. > >Just to add fuel to the fire: I heard awhile back that some >scientists hypothesize that basically all species alive today have >always been around and other, less flexible cousins became extinct >for various reasons over time. We KNOW that this is simply not true. The proof is in the fossil record. What is meant by "Always around" When is "always"? LIke before the earth was here they were floating around in space? Perhaps most ancient plants and >animals will always be unknown due to fossilization never occurring >or never being found. We may have only discovered a tiny amount of >species that have existed and just got lucky with what we have. Probably a very accurate statement Not flaming just discussing, Neil

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2002.02.02 at 16:24:38(8135) THis time factor seems to be tripping us up in this thread. Evolution or Natural Selection takes place over a very long time (in earth terms). Lets take an average orchid time from seed to flower....say aprox 5years for a fast one and about 9 or 10 years for the very slowest................ In 100 years you would have a possible ten generations. In 1000 years 100 generations In1,000,000 years 100,000 generations. THat's a lot of generations but, 1 million years is still not a very long time. Man is estimated to have been on earth many millions of years. Still this is not a very long time. Plants have a lot of patience since they have nothing to think about. Plants have no nervous system, their environments cause them to live or die. If they are equipted to live they live and procreate, if they are not equiped to live they die and they do not procreate. Whether we believe in natural selection or not.....plants and animals have no choice but to die if they are not able to survive. The plants and animals that are able to survive, reproduce and pass on their traits to their offspring. Plants that do not survive do not pass on their traits because they cannot produce offspring when they are dead. Again, time alows for many 'experiments', mutations, combinations and permutations. Mutations, stabilized hybrid swarms, and isolation (islands, teypuis, mountain tops etc.) might help skip a few evolutionary steps, but the off spring still must survive the rigors of their environment......without the aid of a nervous system. For all but a very small number of higher primates, the plants and animals of the world are at the mercy of their envirnoments. And that environment will chose which plant and animal individuals will survive. there is nothing but compitition on this planet. Neil

From: Adam Black epiphyte1 at earthlink.net> on 2002.02.02 at 16:25:01(8137) Though the recent conversation is straying away from aroids and the original question, I think this is a great discussion going on. I have some comments to some of the non-aroid examples below. There is relevant aroid content towards the bottom though!!!!!!!!! Also, I do not intend to attack anyone's personal beliefs on this sometimes touchy subject. These are just my opinions based on the evidence most convincing to me. +More Plantsman wrote: > >Take cattle for example, as they have been domesticated in massive >amounts for millennia. They have changed physically in size, shape, >color & etc., slightly due to selective breeding, but they are all >still are cloven hoofed furry animals that moo. Their udders >haven't begun to relocate nor have they begun development of canine >teeth (or any meaningful upper front teeth for that matter). >They've always been ruminants with multiple stomachs and it doesn't >look like that will ever change. No changes that would distinguish >them as another or new developing species have occurred. > Perhaps there is no need for domesticated cattle to evolve any further from their current state. There is no need to adapt, because normally the correct conditions are always provided for them. Any environmental stressors that would otherwise cause non-domesticated animals to adapt or die are eliminated to maximize productivity. >This is >the case for all animals that are known to exist currently. >Elephants are very much the same as they were three thousand years >ago. Even in the case of Metasequoia glyptostroides (Chinese >Redwood), it remains unchanged from the fossil record. Also the >Coelacanth fish and Alligator for that matter. > It is easy to say that something is a living fossil because it appears unchanged over a very long period of time. However, when you analyze things further, there are still minor to drastic changes over this time, though the general body plan remains the same. Though elephants haven't changed over three thousand years, neither have the majority of organisms living today. Evolutionarily speaking, this is a very short period of time. Starting with the earliest known relatives of today's elephants around 50 million years ago, elephants have experimented with a variety of extreme adaptations over time. Some around 10-20 million years ago had huge lower jaws modified into a shovel-like form, presumably a specialized feeding adaptation. Some had upper tusks and lower tusks. Some varied by the difference in tooth shape, again, a feeding adaptation. Though it is easy to say the Alligator is unchanged over millions of years, we have to look at this one closer as well. The genus Alligator is a fairly recent 20-30 million year old branch off the crocodilian family. Yes, for millions and millions of years, the standard living crocodilian body shape is relatively unchanged for the most part. If we could go back to the time of the dinosaurs, well over 65 million years ago, one could easily identify crocodilians living then. But, looking at the fossil record, and even living representatives of crocodilians, this group, like elephants, experimented with various adaptations over time. One good example living today would be the gharial, a crocodilian that has a very long, very skinny snout lined with thin, needle like teeth. (most other crocodile teeth are pretty blunt). The gharial's adaptation suits it well for quick maneuvers in water, and capturing swift moving slippery fish, on which it feeds exclusively. >Just to add fuel to the fire: I heard awhile back that some >scientists hypothesize that basically all species alive today have >always been around and other, less flexible cousins became extinct >for various reasons over time. Perhaps most ancient plants and >animals will always be unknown due to fossilization never occurring >or never being found. We may have only discovered a tiny amount of >species that have existed and just got lucky with what we have. >Scientists can't even agree on the dating methods of fossils. In >any event, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. > Very true!!!! We can only make "educated" guesses based on what little evidence we have, and what seems remotely plausable, assuming the evidence is being analyzed correctly. Our knowledge has changed so dramatically over the past century with regard to our understanding of fossil and living organisms. Views of prehistoric beasts in the late 1800s are so different, and often seemingly ridiculous compared to modern interpretations. Perhaps in another hundred years, humans will be looking at the theories of today and laughing at our misguided views of the world around us. At the same time, not knowing an organisms origin or how it works only adds to its mystique and uniqueness, and therefore it gains greater appreciation to those who become aware of its presence. NOW, THE AROID CONTENT: One might consider the genus Anthurium to be a large scale evolutionary experiment. There are so many species in this genus with a huge diversity of leaf shapes and habits. Perhaps this group of plants is trying to figure out what is sucessful and what isn't. In a discussion on this list several months ago about Philodendron espiritus-sanctii, it was mentioned that this beautiful plant with its overly exaggerated leaves was known in habitat by only a handful of individuals. Though most people instinctively blamed human greed and habitat destruction for this, I think someone suggested it may have been rare in nature for other reasons, and questioned putting this plant into tissue culture, if it was something that was naturally fading away because it wasn't meant to be. Perhaps this is an example of a plant that was attempting to adapt to its conditions but was unsucessful. Adam Black

From: "Phil Bunch" pbunch at cts.com> on 2002.02.02 at 18:59:34(8141) I beg to differ here. There are well documented cases of "saltatory speciation" in annual plants at the xeric margins of their distributions. These events basically occur in one or two generations due to a combination of chromosomal translocation and founder effects in small populations. Some known examples are morphologically distinct and clearly isolated from hybridization with the parent species. These have resulted from the chance presence of genes that affect gross morphology. How many more exist that do not appear different from the parent species but which are now on a separate evolutionary path? BTW: I don't think this mechanism has been shown to occur in perennials nor would it be likely to. Phil Bunch +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 08:24 Subject: Re: Plants The sixth sense > THis time factor seems to be tripping us up in this thread. Evolution or > Natural Selection takes place over a very long time (in earth terms). Lets > take an average orchid time from seed to flower....say aprox 5years for a > fast one and about 9 or 10 years for the very slowest................ > > In 100 years you would have a possible ten generations. > In 1000 years 100 generations > In1,000,000 years 100,000 generations. > > THat's a lot of generations but, > 1 million years is still not a very long time.

From: "Phil Bunch" pbunch at cts.com> on 2002.02.02 at 18:59:45(8142) > Plantsman wrote: > > > +More > >Take cattle for example, as they have been domesticated in massive > >amounts for millennia. They have changed physically in size, shape, > >color & etc., slightly due to selective breeding, but they are all > >still are cloven hoofed furry animals that moo. Their udders > >haven't begun to relocate nor have they begun development of canine > >teeth (or any meaningful upper front teeth for that matter). > >They've always been ruminants with multiple stomachs and it doesn't > >look like that will ever change. No changes that would distinguish > >them as another or new developing species have occurred. Since these occurred largely through human selection it is unlikely that anyone would have selected for cows with canine teeth. This would be counter productive since it would interfere with their ability to graze so weight gain and milk production would be adversely affected :-) On a more serious note human selection of domestic plants and animals only shows the potential for "natural selection" but in most cases does not touch upon events similar to speciation. There are good reasons why one would not expect to see massive changes in a short period of time. The genetic systems that regulate and support development are complex and changes that would result in strong differences, genus or family level, would probably act as leathals in most cases. Consider also that these genetic systems cannot be assessed in isolation for the environment in which they occur. There's been a lot of fine tuning that keeps and organism adapted to it's environment. A somewhat different circumstance exists during periods of catastrophic environmental change. With the loss of many competitors, the competitive restraints are relaxed. Another interesting issues revolves around the origin of major lineages (family to order levels). These may well have developed fairly rapidly early in evolutionary history when variations of regulatory gene complexes with relatively subtle differences at the time they split off, and diverged greatly as time went on. Phil Bunch

From: William Perez free.willie at verizon.net> on 2002.02.02 at 19:00:01(8143) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Carroll" > To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:02 AM > Subject: Re: Plants The sixth sense > : +More > : The explination is that these chance differences are chosen out, > not in > : thousands of years but over billions of years. Many, Many trial > and error > : scenarios may occur over such a time period. > : > : Neil > : > *************************************** > You may call me old fashioned, but I have a hard time swallowing > that "evolutionary" events of this type cover billions of years. I > find it hard to imagine that the earth's distance from the sun > wouldn't have changed over such a long time span. Small amounts, > either closer or nearer, would prohibit life as we know it from > existing. Thermodynamics. > > Why do we not notice these "experiments" by plants or animals > occurring today or since science has kept up with things. I mean, > with the large propagation firms that exist, you'd think that > occasionally things like this would show up. Now, I'm not talking > about abnormal or defective parts, but actual new variations, i.e., > the "eggs on the roots". The real question is what induced such > things to occur in the first place, not natural selection, which > would occur later. An example of this is why do we have two lungs, > two eyes, two kidneys? Why not three or just one? These basic > precepts occur in all mammals, not just humans. > > Take cattle for example, as they have been domesticated in massive > amounts for millennia. They have changed physically in size, shape, > color & etc., slightly due to selective breeding, but they are all > still are cloven hoofed furry animals that moo. Their udders > haven't begun to relocate nor have they begun development of canine > teeth (or any meaningful upper front teeth for that matter). > They've always been ruminants with multiple stomachs and it doesn't > look like that will ever change. No changes that would distinguish > them as another or new developing species have occurred. This is > the case for all animals that are known to exist currently. > Elephants are very much the same as they were three thousand years > ago. Even in the case of Metasequoia glyptostroides (Chinese > Redwood), it remains unchanged from the fossil record. Also the > Coelacanth fish and Alligator for that matter. > > Just to add fuel to the fire: I heard awhile back that some > scientists hypothesize that basically all species alive today have > always been around and other, less flexible cousins became extinct > for various reasons over time. Perhaps most ancient plants and > animals will always be unknown due to fossilization never occurring > or never being found. We may have only discovered a tiny amount of > species that have existed and just got lucky with what we have. > Scientists can't even agree on the dating methods of fossils. In > any event, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I just have > faith in the Original Designer's handiwork. > > Please no flames, just thoughtful discussion. > > David Sizemore > Kingsport, TN > > > Descent with modification! Read 'The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould. Or any of his books, for that matter. Basically, changes occur with modifications with what's already there. As for the panda, it has a 'thumb' that's evolved from a wrist bone or something like that. That's why cows will always be cows.

From: "Harry Witmore" harrywitmore at witmore.net> on 2002.02.02 at 19:00:39(8146) Adam said: Very true!!!! We can only make "educated" guesses based on what little evidence we have, and what seems remotely plausable, assuming the evidence is being analyzed correctly. I believe that understanding the fossil record is like taking 10,000 grains of sand from a beach and then try to theorize what they all look like. If you happened to sample a spot that had of black sand you might believe that black sand dominated the entire beach. I think many people forget that all this is an educated guess and may in fact be completely wrong. I think all life adapts to conditions by a game of chance called natural selection. It works good for me but doesn't mean I think it's correct either. Harry Witmore +More Cloud Jungle Art www.witmore.net

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2002.02.03 at 16:40:26(8149) In a message dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:02:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, Krzysztof Kozminski writes: > The ones with nodules of wrong color/shape got eaten by the predators > before they managed to set seed, and aren't seen much any more.... > Or, to be more precise (since presumably the ancestral population had no nodules, and was eaten) those with no nodules, or the wrong nodules, were weakened by the predator, and set fewer seeds than those with the right nodules. This is the biggest fallacy I see in creation science: they take an all-or-nothing approach, when in fact, nature is full of many degrees of success. After all, we must still ask why other plants of the same genus, with the same predator, still exist without nodules? Jason Hernandez +More Naturalist-at-Large

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2002.02.03 at 16:40:47(8150) In a message dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:04:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, Durightmm@aol.com writes: > These scientific explanations make sense to scientist but not always to non scientist. For example we seem to be losing sight of the topic "sense" Writers want to know "How" an organism "knows" it's surroundings. How does the vine know. it's peers are being eaten? It doesn't need to. It need only do the best it can at surviving and setting seed itself. If others are getting eaten, then they will have a disadvantage relative to the one not being eaten, as all try their own best to survive. But, if a plant being eaten produces defensive compounds, these may be detected by nearby plants, who can then respond with their own defenses before being attacked themselves. This is easier to understand when one realizes that even our own senses are essentially chemical in nature: we smell by detecting particles in the air, which trigger certain chemical reactions in the olfactory centers of our brains. Plants, of course, having neither noses nor brains, do this in a less-centralized way, over large areas of their bodies. Jason Hernandez +More Naturalist-at-Large

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2002.02.03 at 16:41:08(8151) In a message dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:47:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Plantsman" writes: > Just to add fuel to the fire: I heard awhile back that some > scientists hypothesize that basically all species alive today have > always been around and other, less flexible cousins became extinct > for various reasons over time. Perhaps most ancient plants and > animals will always be unknown due to fossilization never occurring > or never being found. We may have only discovered a tiny amount of > species that have existed and just got lucky with what we have. > Scientists can't even agree on the dating methods of fossils. In > any event, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I just have > faith in the Original Designer's handiwork. > > Please no flames, just thoughtful discussion. No flames here; I grew up Creationist, so I know from whence you are coming. You are close to right in that all known animal phyla have been found as early as the Cambrian (phyla are the basic groups, e.g., arthropoda, chordata [which includes all vertebrates as well as several marine invertebrates], echinodermata). But within those phyla, we do see change over time, which is all evolution really means (we can speak of the evolution of human societies, of languages, of technologies, in exactly the same way; we know that all today's Romance languages evolved from classical Latin). How do I reconcile belief in evolution with belief in religion? Perhaps evolution is one of the created laws of the universe, like thermodynamics. Just a thought. Jason Hernandez +More Naturalist-at-Large

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2002.02.03 at 16:41:29(8152) In a message dated Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:25:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, Neil Carroll writes: > Actually a simple experiment which can naturally choose over a short period > of time is given in many basic texts on the subject....that is ....... > the dandylions in your lawn eventually only flower on short peduncles > because the mower keeps cutting off the ones with long peduncles. On the same note, I have seen a frequently-moved lawn on which wild carrot (Daucus carota) was flowering essentially at ground level. If you have seen the height of a "typical" wild carrot, this is indeed astonishing. If this is a true Darwinian evolution, one has to ask, how did the latent genes for shortness survive long enough to manifest, if the plants were constantly being mowed down before reaching flowering height? Or, perhaps it is not a true evolutionary event; perhaps the plants are showing abnormal behavior triggered by stress. Had I time and space enough, I could collect seeds from these dwarfed plants, plant them in a situation without mowing, and see whether the resulting seedlings (1) remain dwarfed, indicating a true Darwinian change; or (2) revert to the typical tall form (perhaps with some cytoplasmic stunting), indicating stress behavor on the part of the parents. Jason Hernandez +More Naturalist-at-Large

From: William Perez free.willie at verizon.net> on 2002.02.03 at 16:44:22(8160) >> > Descent with modification! > > Read 'The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould. Or any of his books, for > that matter. +More > > Basically, changes occur with modifications with what's already there. As > for the panda, it has a 'thumb' that's evolved from a wrist bone or > something like that. That's why cows will always be cows. > > > > Woops!! I'm wrong here. Descent with modification would apply to an orchid flower looking like a bee. Nothing new is created out of thin air, the petals are simply bent and twisted, shrunk and stretched to look like a bee. As for cows, hmmm, there's some deliberate manipulation going on there, with the emphasis on "man"! And man is simply choosing from the variability of gene expression.

From: Iza & Carol Goroff goroff at idcnet.com> on 2002.02.03 at 22:19:19(8163) There is more than one way to discourage predators, or more generally to ensure a species survival. Perhaps after the species gained its separate identity it evolved that defense while other species evolved their own defenses and reproductive strategies. Each defense has its own costs, both in terms of energy and diversion of other resources from other possible defenses and reproduction increases. The species' environment and the selection it brings helps decide which strategies are optimal. Iza Goroff +More Jason Hernandez wrote: > ... After all, we must still ask why other plants of the same genus, with the same predator, still exist without nodules?

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.