>Dear Toby,
>>B. Hectoides is semi-carnivorous
>>B. Reducta is believed to be wholly carnivorous as it has been shown to =
>>secrete
>>perfume to attract prey and has a host of bacteria and a capacity to abs=
>>orb
>>nutrients from its prey
>>B. tatei - semi carnivorous
>>C. berteroniana - wholly carnivorous
>If you replaced "wholly carnivorous" by "sub-carnivorous" (no trace of
>endogeneous digestive enzymes in the traps, not even in related species o=
>r
>genera) and "semi carnivorous" by "non-carnivorous" (or just "bromeliads"=
>),
>I could agree with the above.
>
>"wholly carnivorous" vs. "semi carnivorous" are rather unsuitable terms
>because these might insinuate a distinction similar to holoparasitic vs.
>hemiparasitic. As all known cps do contain chlorophyll and do perform
>photosynthesis (which holoparastic plants do not), they must all be
>regarded semi carnivorous (at the most).
>
>Bromeliaceae do (as far as it is known) *not* fulfil *all* the criteria o=
>f
>the carnivorous syndrome (attract, catch, digest, absorb), not even in a
>single species. I agree that they (and rather numerous other plants)
>approach it to some degree. This can IMHO be expressed appropriately by t=
>he
>term "sub-carnivorous".
>
>Or would anybody dare to predict the future course of evolution
>("pre-carnivorous") when it is frequently difficult enough to reconstruct=
>
>the past?
>
>Kind regards
>Jan
Well, the list I gave was only based on hearing people refer to these
plants like that and what I have seen in books, so I give it no
endorsement of personal knowledge. Anyway, who am I to argue with you
:-))
What I meant in the terms "wholly carnivorous" and "semi-carnivorous"
was that these plants were either semi or wholly carnivorous in relation
to other carnivorous plants and not to other angiosperms as general, but
I get your (very valid) point.
Bye,
Toby