Date: Mon, 02 Nov 98 23:58 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3487$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: sub carnivores
Dear Rich,
> > If the plant is unable to "taste" and react to the "prey" by
> >digesting it, then I wouldn't say the plant can eat. Would you?
>
> Howdy Dave and anyone else following this thread!
>
> Actually, I could very easily. If a plant can attract, capture and
> absorb nutrients from prey then I think it could well be carnivorous
> regardless of whether or not it secretes digestive enzymes. If the plant
> achieves digestion by creating a symbiotic relationship with bacteria and
> or fungi then that works for me.
Yes, but do the plants we are talking about do this? I have seen
these "carnivorous" airplants and am not impressed. They do not
seem able to attract and capture, rather weak or dying bugs get
stuck in a wedge between leaves and, if they are not washed away,
rot there on the leaf.
I'm not sure, but I believe that plants that have symbiotic
relationships with fungi tend to involve the roots, since fungi
have lots of powerful enzymes the work on wood and rock (minerals)
as the roots grow through the soil. Since species of pine tree
need symbiotic fungi and fallen neighbors for the the fungi to
digest, would you call these trees carnivores, herbivores, or
cannibals? They are literally feeding off their neighbor's
(mother's?, sister's?) corpse. And they do compete for light,
the losers die and feed the winner's seedlings...
Supposedly close to half the species of animals are parasites,
in one form or another (a recent Discover). Perhaps the same
holds true for the plant kindom as well. Do these sub-carnivores
really fill out most of the check list for CP's? Or do they
better fill out some other catagory?
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:38 PST