Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:26:03 +0100 From: Paul Temple <paultemple@ecologycal.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2733$foo@default> Subject: Re: Carnivore or not Carnivore ? Further points perhaps?
You asked
>Does any one have any comments,
I'm not going to answer your whole email - my friends suffer from my
total silence as I've little or no time to do anything right now - so i
can hardly now write a long reply. But I wanted to reply to some of
what you said.
I am not arguing or supporting that Roridula is a carnivorous plant.
But i will state bluntly that i do not believe that there is, as yet, a
single agreed definition of what comprises a carnivorous plant.
I certainly recall Jan introducing (to me at least) the idea thatplants
could be proto-carnivorous rather than carnivorous, creating a second
group of interest to us. But equally i have had variious interesting
(to me) diuscussions with Jan (and others) over whether or not a plant
is or is not carnivorous (or even proto-carnivorous).
The point I think you make is that you believe Roridula meets your
definition of a carnivorous plant. That seems OK to me. Your argumens
on whether or not Roridula devives any benefit from insects caught by it
are either scientifically correct or not, I would assume easily
proveable one way or another. So all that is really needed is an in
depth discussion that tries to gain support for a single accepted
definition of what is:
- a carnivorous plant
- a proto-carnivorous plant
- a non-carnivorous plant
or perhaps the same but using a word other than carnivorous;
insectivorous, omnivorous, or what? After all,
it was Peter Taylor (anyone going to dispute his pedigree?) who argued
that most Utricularia derive most of the trapped nutient from alga and
microscopic plants or diatoms, not animals.
Regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:12 PST