Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:22:28 +0100 From: "antony orpin" <antony@aorpin.freeserve.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2697$foo@default> Subject: Carnivore or not Carnivore ? Further points perhaps?
Hello CP listserve, Following quite a few e-mails, suggesting that I
am a perhaps a 'tinnie short of a six-pack', perhaps I would put
this idea forward for discussion: Looking at the energetics of the
situation (comparing Roridula, ie a non-enzyme producing
sub-carnivore, to a 'carnivore' ,(under today's classification)) Is
this plant just a little bit more clever in adapting to a situation
where the plant in it's self does not have to go to the bother and
energy wastage of producing it's own enzymes when something else
will do it for it?. AND also what about cell autolysis?? OK the
plant may well not get all the possible available nutrients , but if
it is able to gain enough nutrition in allowing the caught prey to
autolyse (ie in laymans terms, lyse or self destruct at a cellular
level, without bacterial or fungal intervention, which will always
hapen, even in an aseptic environment, after death of an organism,
the end advantage to the plant is the same:Nitrigenous
nutrition(plus everything else), butnitrogenous nutrition is what
Carnivorous plants are all about. Does any one have any comments,
appart from ones of personal criticism? I am not looking to
critisise anyone, it is just that to produce enzymes is just really
what being in the carnivorous plant game is really all about if you
care to think about the bigger picture..... perhaps I am still
wrong, science is not about the acceptance of one phillosophy, it
evolves..
Looking forward to hearing from you, Tony
[HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:12 PST