TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
But WHY should the catch big prey
Mammals are not so easy to degist than a constant drop of small insect corpses and the pitchers will easily be overfed and rot. Big prey will lure animals which are searching for food and propably destroying the pitcher to obtain the captured animal which would be an easy to get meal.
And IF they would evolve into big pitchers plants it will take a lots of time and it is defintly not sure if human beeings are then still walking over this planet. (At the moment the better question will be hwo long some of the Nepenthes will survive withot any remaining suitable habitat)
Martin
Mammals are not so easy to degist than a constant drop of small insect corpses and the pitchers will easily be overfed and rot. Big prey will lure animals which are searching for food and propably destroying the pitcher to obtain the captured animal which would be an easy to get meal.
And IF they would evolve into big pitchers plants it will take a lots of time and it is defintly not sure if human beeings are then still walking over this planet. (At the moment the better question will be hwo long some of the Nepenthes will survive withot any remaining suitable habitat)
Martin
Good point Martin.
I can see it working if the digestive secretions become more powerful as the pitcher size increases. If the juice was more powerful, the prey would be digested more quickly and at least prevent rot (though scavengers is another story). Does anyone know if there is any corolation between pitcher size and enzyme potentcy?
I can see it working if the digestive secretions become more powerful as the pitcher size increases. If the juice was more powerful, the prey would be digested more quickly and at least prevent rot (though scavengers is another story). Does anyone know if there is any corolation between pitcher size and enzyme potentcy?
I think it won't be long before Nepenthes will exist only in cultivation. Then, evolution will basically be in the hands of humans, and survivability will have little to do with catching prey and much more dependent on how much a particular Nep "pleases" the humans that are cultivating it. Imagine a Nep that by some random mutation created, say, a star-shape pitcher. Growers who find it charming will clone it like crazy, and before you know it, through adverse selection, Neps would have "evolved" into producing star-shaped pitchers, regardless of whether or not the shape facilitates catching prey.
There a book called....I think something like "Botany of Desire" that describes how the evolution of tulips, apples, potatoes, and marijuana have totally been engineered by humans. I think the same will apply to future Neps.
There a book called....I think something like "Botany of Desire" that describes how the evolution of tulips, apples, potatoes, and marijuana have totally been engineered by humans. I think the same will apply to future Neps.
That was a very good book by Michael Pollan. I think that's his name.... It explained how humans are just like very large bees with different needs from well, bees. Apples taste good so there propagated, tulips look good so there propagated, nepenthes look even better and control people so there propagated.
G
Guest
Guest
I believe evolution is the natural, genetic change of an organism, that benefiets it, and raises its ability to survive. The change of plants in cultivation is the result of selective breeding. Take wolfs and dogs for example. Humans have been selectively breeding dogs for centuries, creating the many different species of dog that we know today.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tristan @ Nov. 27 2002,4:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was a very good book by Michael Pollan. I think that's his name.... It explained how humans are just like very large bees with different needs from well, bees. Apples taste good so there propagated, tulips look good so there propagated, nepenthes look even better and control people so there propagated.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, yes, that's the author's name. Thanks for reminding me.
I'm pretty much in the camp that believes that selection = evolution. Some people call it co-evolution. Whatever it takes to maximize probability of staying in the gene pool is evolution IMO, including pleasing humans. Whether they like it or not, humans are part of their "environment".
Anyone see the Discovery Channel program called The Canine Conspiracy? That was another great of example this whole issue. Very fascinating topic.
Yes, yes, that's the author's name. Thanks for reminding me.
I'm pretty much in the camp that believes that selection = evolution. Some people call it co-evolution. Whatever it takes to maximize probability of staying in the gene pool is evolution IMO, including pleasing humans. Whether they like it or not, humans are part of their "environment".
Anyone see the Discovery Channel program called The Canine Conspiracy? That was another great of example this whole issue. Very fascinating topic.
