Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:16:16 +0100 From: "antony orpin" <antony@aorpin.freeserve.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2656$foo@default> Subject: Carnivore or not Carnivore?
Hello everyone, Just a thought, whilst re-reading a couple a
chapters of the Savage Garden, a thought... Helliamphora is
considered a carnivore, the same with Darlingtonia, also Brochinia.
Why is Roridula then consigned to the class of 'sub-carnivore'?
(along with Byblis liniflora)...... To my understanding the
adaptations of all three are designed to gain nutrition from
insect/invertibrate sources. None of these plants produce enzmes
themselves to break down their prey, yet Roridula has been classed
as a sub-carnivore just on this fact alone. Is this just an odd
peculiarity of modern classification, or is it that the CP's
wouldn't want to see half of the plants they cultivate classed as
'not proper' carnivores? I dare say this will annoy a few people
out there, but I just can not see why these plants are classed
differently, they all have adapted, along different paths to
capture/utilise insects. In all respects, what is the difference in
the end product if a plant uses bacteria to break it's prey down
compared to capsid bugs?
Sarracenia. Have any of you noticed a difference in growth in
heavily red pigmented S Flava seedlings? Mine seem to exhibit the
phenomenon ''the redder it is, the slower and smaller it grows''
(seedlings up to 3 years, comparing seedlings germinated from the
same batch of seeds)
Davion: You sent me a couple of e-mails, I had to re-format my hard
drive, and lost my in-box etc before I replied. Please send me your
address.( I was waiting for a posting from you on the ListServe)
All the Best, Tony Northern Ireland.
[HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:12 PST