User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 48

Thread: Carnivory...what IS it?

  1. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I didnt mean that they could survive without the bacteria. Of course they need the bacteria its justs that wood isnt solely cellulose. Cellulose is just in the cell wall in every cell and the bacteria are for digesting that which the termites cant, but the termite can digest the other parts. The digesting of the cellulose is very import and makes up the majority of the digested material, but not all. Its just that I persume that some plants cant digest anything and COMPLETELY rely on bacteria for all the digesting. This I think doesnt fit into the digestion criteria of carnivory. Though I believe that they are still are carnivorous and just found a creative way around digesting others would disagree.

  2. #10
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Virus

    Thanks for the reply. The criteria I listed came from a post in the Quasi-Carnivorous forum on Devil's Claw. Someone (can't remember who at the moment) listed those criteria for a plant meet in order to be considered carnivorous. And then some of the other following comments got me to thinking. (Not always a pretty thing...lol)

    To my mind...I wouldn't consider prey as trapped if it got away. I guess I think of something as being trapped only if its retained...but that's just my way of thinking.

    So I just got to thinking why it would matter if a plant benefited from enzymes or bacteria if both fed the plant either directly or indirectly. If the criteria is strictly digest by way of enzymes, then I guess the plants that use bacteria alone are not carnivorous.

    And then I just wondered why the degree of enzymes would matter as to whether a plant was carnivorous or only sort of carnivorous. If heliamphora don't have as much enzymes for digestion as say a VFT, does it make less carnivorous?

    Again, all these thoughts came from reading the Devils Claw posts. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Thanks...interesting discussion. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Suzanne
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  3. #11
    fatboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nah Suzanne I do agree with They on point # 1 - trapping and retaining being different.
    Plants can trap but not retain. The one I am thinkiing of may be Amorphophallus but if not it's definitely one of the stinky flowers, attract beetles with a terrible stench. The bugs enter and remain trapped until part of the flower dies, and I'm sure it takes at least 24 hours. Once that has happened the part that has them trapped withers, and they are free to sod off and polinate another flower somewhere else.

    In that case the insects are trapped but then released, which would disqualify the plant as carnivorous, in addition to the fact that the plant doesn't have most of the other features of a CP either.

    That beaver stuff sounds rank.

    Cheers, FB

  4. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Marshfield, MA (US) USDA zone 6 cold-temperate coastal
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am to blame for the criteria found in the Ibicella thread. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]

    It was in CPN volume 30, No. 2, p51. The author lists the source as being Juniper, B.E., Robins, R.J., and Joel, D.M. 1989, The Carnivorous Plants, Academic Press, London.

    Chris
    Chris Roy
    Eastern Massachusetts, United States

    I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter. - Blaise Pascal

  5. #13
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Aahhh...I should have known it was a troublemaker like you. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img] I think you should be voted off the island for that. hehehehehehe [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Actually I found it interesting. I hadn't read that before. It just got me to thinking.

    Now...is there any significant difference between "insectivorous" and "carnivorous"? Is one more accurate than the other? Hmmmmm...Chris?? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Suzanne
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  6. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Absolutely no difference what so ever. They are two terms describing the same thing made at two different times.

  7. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Angry

    Based on the previous scientific posts I conclude that termites are not carnivorous. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]
    There's a tunnel at the end of the light...

  8. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas; USA
    Posts
    2,363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lol... to fun..


    first, I believe there is a difference between insectevorous and carnivorous, as I have seen plants catch more than simple insect, flytrap snapping on snails, and the rare oddity of course we have all heard of nepenthes trapping and digesting small monkeys, rats, and so forth... while not designed to it, the DO do it, and while they may lose a pitcher to rot, the Nepenthes most definately benefit from the influx of nutrients....

    furthermore, I believe there is a difference TECHNICALLY between enyzme and bacterial digestion, but in the end, the plant has developed the ability to abosrb those broken down nutrients, regardless of 'who done it', and is there fore carnivorous...

    Take the great carnivore, the Lion, we have known for decades that the lion is an opportunist, that it will steal kills from lesser lions, or other animals, and it will without a doubt, eat carrion... but it's a predator right?

    the problem is not the plant/animal not fitting neatly into our classifications, it is the classifications themselves, Tyranosaur = Predator... umm.. NO, Tyranosaur = Creature of Opportunity, Thief, Carrion Eater, and Predator of SMALL animals (It's teeth where to shallow to rip meat chunks off larger creatures) Lion = Predator... again, no... we can go on... our classification systems aren't all right...

    To anser your questions... think about this... we are basically saying if all carnivorous plants don't catch their food and digest it the same way (major difference between bacterial and enzyme) then one or two major classifications out there are NOT predatory?

    Are you predatory? Are you a meat eater? How did you kill your food? Is purpera a predator because it lets the rain and dew fill up it's traps instead of doing itself like other sars and neps? What about the N. Bicalarata where the PLANT Traps, but it's symbiotic Golden ants rescue, then butcher the insect, only throwing enough back into the plant to keep it from attainint so much bio-mass it rots... Bicalarata does not do the ACTIVE killing in this case, it's more like a trapper taking his catch to the town butcher... what about roridula and it's assasin bugs? Or Drosophylum? do they BENEFIT from a deadly activity they encourage? YES.

    If a plant 'seeks' to kill for the benefit of absorbing the victims nutrients, then it is carnivorous. The method in which it goes about accomplishing any of the goals, except absorbtion, which is either through specialize glands, or it's roots, then IMHO, it is a carnivore. (Do you drink beer? you are consuming the byproduct of bacterial decay... you are in effect... eating the droppings of micro-organisms... those same micro-organisms, and the little remains of the origional material... so... does that make you a carrion eater? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]
    \"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: \"Mankind\". Basically, it\'s made up of two separate words - \"mank\" and \"ind\". What do these words mean ? It\'s a mystery, and that\'s why so is mankind.\" ~ Jack Handey

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •