Which came first?

[Halt]

I just had a brainspark, and thought how can darlingtonia change, evolve, their shape to look like a snake, when they have no eyes. Snakes have eyes. Who knows how they looked like before the Darlingtonia. So, which do you think came first? The snake plant, or the snake reptile?

 

[theyellowdart]

I don't think Darlingtonia evolved to look like a snake on purpose. Through much trial and error, the plant probably figured out that it's current form was the best shape for catching insects in it's habitat at the time.
Just a co-inky-dink.

Funny though... Today I was pondering on how CPs can further evolve; I thought about them eventually developing some kind of organ that releases CO2 to help them catch mosquitoes.
But then I thought, how would they know that that is an effective method for attracting insects?

 

[DrWurm]

The snake and the cobra plant evolved separately, and the only link between the two is the one we imbue upon them with our consciences. As far as my googling has taken me, the first carnivorous plants appeared before the first snakes.

TRUTH.

Jason

 

[swords]

While not directly Darlingtonia V snake debate related, in the Nepenthes volume of Flora Malesiana (#14?) it mentions fossil droseraecae pollen (of which Neps being related apparently) being 10x larger than currently. Just think of plants 10x bigger, 20 cm pitchers being 200 cm pitchers...

Of course it would take a dragonfly with a 3 ft wingspan to feed such pitchers and those are so hard to come by anymore.

 

[herenorthere]

Some of the snakey people can correct or add to this, but I remember reading that snakes might have been an evolutionary response to the increasing number of fast moving, warm-blooded animals. I can see that, since a snake can strike at its prey more quickly than a lizard can run at its prey.

 

[Wolfn]

I don't think plants evolved to become carnivorous. I think they were created that way.

 

[Nepfreak]

*blocks the imminent debate on intellegent design & creationism vs. evolution*

 

[justjack]

Wow. This starts up and I'm outa here!

Laaaaaaaaaaaate.

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

I don't think plants evolved to become carnivorous. I think they were created that way.

Though there is much prehistorical evidence lacking to back up both my view and this one I believe plants evolved to become carnivorous. It's a whole mechanism that relies on prey and symbiotic relationships with bacterias in some instances. The probability that a mechanism as complex as the one we see today, would have appeared with the intent of deriving nutrients from bugs by luring, capturing, killing, digesting, and assimilating is very very very very slim if not unheard of.
Different plants in different parts of the world evolved similar mechanisms (Sarracenia, Nepenthes, Heliamphora). These mechanisms all worked in the same manner but we can see very clearly that there is not just one proper form for a mechanism but in this case, 3 that we know of. There are even different specimens within the same genus suggesting that these plants have evolved from 1 distant common ancestor.

There is evidence that VFTs evolved from Drosera. If two specimen can be so physically different yet come to be more closely related then we could imagine, it may be that Drosera's ancestor (or any other CP) was just as much different, even possibly non carnivorous (though there is no data or proof to back this up).

Plants dont just appear with a plan on how they're going to survive. It's a battle of the fittest in the environment that they end up being set in and the ones that made it through the challenge of nutrient poor soil were the ones that had genetic mutations which allowed them to collect nutrients from insects in their own environment through their leaves. How many mutations it took to get to the plants we know today is a mystery but I would love to have this riddle solved sometime in my lifetime. I just simply do not agree with the theory of creationism.

 

[DrWurm]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Don't do it! Do not engage! I repeat: do not engage!

Although I'm not sure what Halt's original intentions were for this thread, I'm pretty sure he did not ask for an evolutionism vs. creationism debate. I've seen too many similar threads hijacked by such irrelevant discussions.

Jason

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

Not engaging at all, I hope no one takes that the wrong way. Just stating my opinion, anyone can freely agree, reject or modify my post or Wolfn's post to fit their own views.


But ya I dont think the Cobra Plant has anything to do with a real cobra snake. Just one of those neat coincidences in nature Bird of paradise looks like a birds beak i think when in flower. Soooo pretty.

 

[theyellowdart]

In the Darlingtonia section of the ICPS website it is written that the first leaves of Darlingtonia seedlings are representative of what the plant used to look like before it was carnivorous.
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/seedbank/species/Darlingtonia.htm Take a look at the 3rd picture and caption down.

In my eyes, I view Heliamphora as the most primitive carnivore. The pitchers look just like rolled up leaves, suggesting the plant used to look halfway normal (and of course, didn't catch insects). (I believe this has been suggested before, however I can't remember where I heard it.)

There's no doubt these things have evolved to what they are now.
Frenchy, you laid out what I was going to attempt writing perfectly.

 

[DrWurm]

In my eyes, I view Heliamphora as the most primitive carnivore. The pitchers look just like rolled up leaves, suggesting the plant used to look halfway normal (and of course, didn't catch insects). (I believe this has been suggested before, however I can't remember where I heard it.)

How about Brocchinia reducta? Just looks like a normal brom, but it's carnivorous. Interestingly enough, although it seems like darlingtonia are "more" carnivorous than brocchinia, they produce no digestive enzymes, while B. reducta produces at least one.

Jason

 

[herenorthere]

I think CPs were created so that members of ICPS and people who post here don't look like idiots. Imagine telling people you're into CPs and they say you're a moron because there is no such thing. It takes a lot of foresight to anticipate that there'll be CP enthusiasts so there better be some CPs for them to be enthusiastic about.

 

[obregon562]

Everyoe knows God loves CPs. Cha. Just like God loves the republican way (Sorry, i couldnt resist! )!

I think Darlingtonia evolved from a messed up Sarracenia. Think of...maybe a psittacina hybrid. The lid almost completly covers the lid. Now imagine that lid slowly, elongates and widens to make the opening to the "mouth" somewhat like an S. minor. And that tip, the "main vein" keeps elongating. Bamn, thats the "proto-type" Darlingtonia we see as its seedling pictures. Then that keeps developing and specializing, the vein seperates into a ^ like structure and developes, and bamn, a Darlingtonia.

As for snakes and an actual cobra, they came about from lizards without the need for legs. Most likely they burrowed and legs became an impediment.

 

[Baylorguy]

In all fairness, you just labeled Wolfn based on one sentence... and you made lots of assumptions while doing so.

Though there is much prehistorical evidence lacking to back up both my view and this one I believe plants evolved to become carnivorous. It's a whole mechanism that relies on prey and symbiotic relationships with bacterias in some instances. The probability that a mechanism as complex as the one we see today, would have appeared with the intent of deriving nutrients from bugs by luring, capturing, killing, digesting, and assimilating is very very very very slim if not unheard of.
Different plants in different parts of the world evolved similar mechanisms (Sarracenia, Nepenthes, Heliamphora). These mechanisms all worked in the same manner but we can see very clearly that there is not just one proper form for a mechanism but in this case, 3 that we know of. There are even different specimens within the same genus suggesting that these plants have evolved from 1 distant common ancestor.

There is evidence that VFTs evolved from Drosera. If two specimen can be so physically different yet come to be more closely related then we could imagine, it may be that Drosera's ancestor (or any other CP) was just as much different, even possibly non carnivorous (though there is no data or proof to back this up).

Plants dont just appear with a plan on how they're going to survive. It's a battle of the fittest in the environment that they end up being set in and the ones that made it through the challenge of nutrient poor soil were the ones that had genetic mutations which allowed them to collect nutrients from insects in their own environment through their leaves. How many mutations it took to get to the plants we know today is a mystery but I would love to have this riddle solved sometime in my lifetime. I just simply do not agree with the theory of creationism.

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

In all fairness, you just labeled Wolfn based on one sentence... and you made lots of assumptions while doing so.

How exactly did I label him? I just stated that I did not agree with the statement he made and posted my own view. I'm pretty sure I in no way said anything about him, just about why I didnt believe the same thing. I never said he was wrong and I was right or that he had to believe what I said....

 

[I am Bob]

I personaly think that this topic should be closed before we get in a huge fight. That is me. I am not saying you are now, but it is pointing that way.

 

[Baylorguy]

Agreed.

French3z, I did not mean my reply to be a harsh one... it's just that this whole debate ALWAYS has a laundry list of assumptions and just plain poor information from BOTH sides. I am not saying you contributed to it, but I was simply trying to prevent it from getting ugly.

Again, I apologize if I was too forward. I'll go to sleep now

Phil

I personaly think that this topic should be closed before we get in a huge fight. That is me. I am not saying you are now, but it is pointing that way.

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

Apologies as it seems I mistook your message as well. I promise I wont bring this topic up anymore It's a heated debate and I truly respect ANY view on it. That was merely my 2 cents and I force no one to see it the same way or believe what I believe.
I do enjoy other points of views though as long as they are in the same manner as I have written mine. Best to put this one to sleep though ZzZzZzZ

Sorry again Baylorguy for misinterpreting.

Agreed.

Frenchy, I did not mean my reply to be a harsh one... it's just that this whole debate ALWAYS has a laundry list of assumptions and just plain poor information from BOTH sides. I am not saying you contributed to it, but I was simply trying to prevent it from getting ugly.

Again, I apologize if I was too forward. I'll go to sleep now

Phil