Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:01:00 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1649$foo@default> Subject: re: Sundew Evolution
Dear Ivan,
> Quite sure, some were fully formed and functional. I will try to preserve
> them next time for you.
Yes, please do so (preferably in 70% ethanol). I will be at the San
Francisco conference. Will you attend, too?
> Might this make you a believer?
Probably not. There are just too large differences between tentacles
and styles. But the material would be an interesting example for
teratological transformations.
> Styles are sensitive to protein ( pollen grain surface ). As you know, I
> do much cross pollination. Flowers close up quickly, but I remove petals
> to expose, so I have witnessed movement. Check it out.
What I meant was rapid movement. Styles do wither after pollination.
But these movements are not comparable to the rapid, reversible
movements of tentacles.
> I read it. Perfectly plausible, and no major conflict with the idea
> suggested above.
I do see a major conflict in the fundamentally different structure of
tentacles and styles. The organs are IMHO not homologous to each
other.
> My idea merely shows where the traits may have come from.
Perhaps at a *cellular* level (well, all these cells belong to the
same organism, so this is no great surprise). But the *organs*
are not related to each other, neither by structure nor by function.
> I see from your CPN article that you understand the principle of
> translocation and reinscribed function.
Well, this is a pretty obvious principle. Not much to understand
here. If that was your principal point, we are in perfect agreement.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:08 PST