Jurassic Plants Make A Comeback 260
Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting that
saplings of the Wollemi Pine will go on sale
by the end of 2005. This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age. After it was discovered in 1994 in a single
Australian grove, the tree's home has been kept a top secret. Research to find the best way to grow the plants on a
commercial scale has now paid off and the pines are set for a return. As they grow slowly and like low-light conditions they will be marketed as indoor plants." This looks like an interesting addition to any home, even if the article's title is a bit of a misnomer.
eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh? Surely ALL plants we see around us today are survivors from the Jurassic age. Sure, they are descendants, but so is the Wollemi Pine.
Re:eh? (Score:5, Informative)
That line wasn't in the BBC article. It seems very unlikely. A cursory Google search turns up Jurassic Plants [enchantedlearning.com] which says
Several of the trees listed are still around. No need to be over-dramatic. It's a plant that was thought extinct for millions of years; that's a distinction enough.Re:eh? (Score:2)
Re:eh? (Score:5, Informative)
Eh. no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember Biologists (by virue or vice of studying this stuff) have very different ideas about what a descendant is.
This is the same species which implies that it could (if we ever figure out that pesky time travel machine) cross breed with the plants growing in the Jurassic age. Modern plants (also descendants, but certainly not of the same species) would not be expected to have this ability.
Or you could look at it like this:
These are the real McCoy, but the modern plants are just cheap knock-offs (and probably Japanese imports to boot too!)
Re:eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
No such thing as genetic perfection (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans do evolve! (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, and widely unappreciated.
An exception to this rule might be made for H. sapien sapien, but one could argue we're operating outside of natural selection now
Alas, a popular thought, but quite uncontroversially false, even though it has been suggested (largely for the sake of Dramatic Pronouncement) by a few scientists who really should know better. (The below comments are aimed at this wrong notion; don't take it personally.)
ALL that is required for natural selection is heritable characteristics (DNA) that have at least a little random mutation, and reproduction rates modulated by external forces (variable death and offspring rates).
That's why it is so easy to simulate genetic algorithms. Given only a few obvious, easy criteria, anything can and will evolve to better fit an ecological niche (or to maintain homeostasis in that niche if it is already at a local optimum).
Thus, to turn off evolution for humans, you'd have to eliminate one or more of those easy characteristics...yet humans still die for environmental reasons, our DNA still mutates, we reproduce at different rates for external reasons (we geeks should be keenly aware of the female choosing or avoiding mates ;-)
Therefore obviously Homo Sapiens still evolves. It is an extremely lame, incoherent, not well thought out argument to say that modern medicine saves many who would otherwise die without reproducing and therefore there is no longer evolution. Ha! It would take a lot more than that.
To paint it even more clearly, things like medicine and nutrition and technology merely change the definition of the local optimum and/or of the ecological niche...but there still exists an ecological niche for humans.
Come on, if someone is so ugly that they couldn't get laid carrying a bunch of bananas into a monkey whorehouse, then their differential reproduction rate is going to be lower than other members of the species, all other things being equal. This is just common sense.
This notion that humans are above even evolution is just another conceit, right up there with Earth being the center of the universe and man being created in the image of God. You wish. ;-)
Re:Humans do evolve! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with both...I did understand, and no, it hasn't changed to "unnatural selection".
First off, humans are not directing their own selection/evolution/etc. If we did, this would be a form of eugenics, which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.
If humans ever did stick with a selective breeding program (selective mating works better than genocide, btw), note that it would take about 50 generations for easy results and 1000 generations for moderately difficult results. Selection is a slow process.
And even so, selective breeding is merely a variation on natural selection; breeding new flower varieties is certainly not "unnatural selection".
In the future we are undoubtedly going to make strong use of direct intervention in the human genome, and one could then attempt to introduce new terminology like "unnatural selection".
But this still wouldn't eliminate natural selection in humans, because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors, and there would still be sexual selection at work (short of a police state enforcing partners).
But that's beside the point...the discussion was about the notion that humans currently do not undergo natural selection, which is absurd. We most certainly do.
Re:Humans do evolve! (Score:3, Interesting)
Unsuccessful? Seen any Roma lately? No, because they're all dead. A successful genocide. (There may be a few left, but the traits of the average human genome have been altered by effectively wiping out a distinct ethnic group)
This isn't universally apparent now, but the "judenhas" genocide was also quite successful. By eliminating 60% of the Jewish population, and driving the rest into a clustered enclave whe
Re:Humans do evolve! (Score:4, Insightful)
Going back to my original post, my point was that to some extent, we no longer evolve based on selection pressure a causing trait b to be inherited more often.
Natural selection is a process where a given individual either adapts or fails to adapt to their environment. Humans have traditionally adapted by developing intelligence: getting smarter. Because we've gotten smarter, instead of growing a whole bunch of limbs that make us able to survive in any environment, we are able to build tools, machines, and various other devices to adapt to various environments. The reason humans that live in the polar regions don't have to grow big bushy coats of fur is because they can make jackets and skin the animals that already live there. We can also make fire. Environmental pressures are much less, due to the development of science and invention. Now, in the years since then, has that allowed us to break evolution?
Of course not. Why? Because we have to keep being smart, because our environment is always changing. Now, when we say environment, people usually think of trees and dirt paths and streams and so forth. THat's also what they think when we say "nature". But your environment is everything around you, and nature is the whole world that conforms to natural laws. The absence/presence of technology has absolutely no bearing on our evolutionary status. Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not we are in "nature" following "nature's rules". We are always in nature, if we're on Manhattan Island or camping out in the Cascades. And we must always adapt to our environment, or die.
It just so happens that thousands/millions of years ago, our ancestors decided either consciously or not that instead of growing a bunch of different limbs, it would be much more efficient to work on being smarter.
This, I contend, is because we choose partners for more than just transfer of genes to the next generation. Think how many countless couples choose not to have any offspring - this trait is not weeded out of the population for a variety of socio-economic reasons. But that just underscores my point - socio-economic selection pressures don't exist in "nature"!
How do you know that the reasons we chose partners are not motivated by the transfer of genes to the next generation? How are you so certain that some people are driven genetically to not choose partners or otherwise reproduce? I further maintain that socio-economic pressures do exist in "nature", because we live in "nature". Even surrounded by technology. Can't break natural laws. Sorry. Socio-economic systems appear in the wild. In fact, many different types of insects have experimented with Communism, Socialism, and even the Republic. Monarchy, of course. If you look real hard you'll see the default economic system of Capitalism at work in the wild. As humans, we haven't invented any of this. We've just adapted to it, and adapted it with us. The only thing we can claim we've achieved is intelligence, and we can only claim enough intelligence to have adapted to every single environmental condition on this planet. And that only stands for the species as a whole, individuals frequently die in harsher environmental conditions.
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is simple and obvious: it hasn't needed to. Whatever survival strategy it found has worked well enough that it hasn't needed to evolve. That does not mean that other isolated populations of said plant have not evolved into something else. Evolution does not mean that a species can not splinter and have one group adapt into a new species and another group stay the same.
Remember ... (Score:2)
"Going back to the dinosaur analogy, you can guess from fossils how they hunted, but if you found one alive, you would now for sure."
Caus' you would be the prey...
So they "resurrected" an old, old plant from the few remaining survivors.
And they are ready to spread tham worldwide.
In a mix of conflicting emotions, remembering both Jurassic Park and the little shop of Horrors, I for one welcomes our Green, Jurassic Overlords 8p.
Re:Remember ... (Score:2)
You can't resurrect something that's not dead yet. I suppose you're also against releasing captive-bred eagles, pandas, condors, and [insert endangered species here]?
Well, actually, (Score:2)
I much more prefer to see them put to a good use than shamelessy released to Nature...
And when I say good use, I mean "http://www.petsorfood.com/"
8p
Ginko Biloba is 200 millions years old (Score:2)
Jurassic? Australia? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:2)
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the most common theories...
Australia was part of Pangea [wikipedia.org] just like all other continents. Unless you mean something happened even before that, but then basically all continents were as one supercontinent anyway and I don't see how a moon (!) impact would form Australia in specific.
Pangea later split to form Laurasia and Gondwanaland. Australia should be from the latter.
The theory you mention
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:3, Funny)
Simple. Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. Cheese floats because of all the holes in it. So a moon splashed in the ocean, floated around a bit and eventually got stuck on some undersea mountain. Voila! Australia.
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you misunderstood that you were supposed to use the glue on your shoes, not smoke it.
Australia has some of the most ancient exposed rocks known, 4.3 billion years.
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jurassic? Australia? (Score:2)
It was, but the inhabitants stole them. We're just looting their stash.
It is not the only one (for now) (Score:5, Informative)
So for now there is another grove and it is also listed as world heritage site by Unesco. Note the "for now" as you will not see any saplings from it. You are least likely to see the grove itself in a few hundred years either (it is awesome).
Re:It is not the only one (for now) (Score:3, Informative)
The UNESCO World Heritage site [unesco.org] doesn't mention your grove, only the Australian one.
For more info on the Wollemi pine, visit here [rbgsyd.gov.au].
Re:It is not the only one (for now) (Score:2)
Re:It is not the only one (for now) (Score:2)
Re:It is not the only one (for now) (Score:2, Informative)
Go is one of the oldest board games in human history still being played. There is probably some sort of mystic connection between the qualities of the wood from this family and the game. Early legends on Go boards suggest that the construction
The only plant survivor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:3, Insightful)
The excitement in the writer's words don't seem so authentic either. I suspect that the company doing the cultivation is also the one who first reported this as news. Nothing beats the media for mis-guided i
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:2)
Or try Lapland (northern Finland/Scandinavia) in the summer. You'll get to combine Jurassic fauna and Extreme Sports!
You do like mosquitoes, right?
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:5, Informative)
Want to see a creature whose roots date back to the beginning of life on earth, but whose physical appearane has changed very little in that time? Go to a beach and find a horseshoe crab [horseshoecrab.org]. They've been around for millions of years, and looked pretty much the way they do now. They've also got blue blood, which any true geek would find interesting.
Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock! (Score:2)
Re:Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock! (Score:3, Interesting)
If Spock's blood is really green, it's either a different copper-based molecule or perhaps chlorocruorin (iron-based, found in some worms), or possibly something vanadium-based. (Among others, sea squirts have vanadium-based blood. Colors are green, blue or orange, depending on the specific molecule.)
Speaking of Star Trek, since Klingons have violet blood (based on one of the movies), it's probably based on hemerythrin (also iron-based and found in some invertebrates here).
Spineless Klingons (Score:2)
Interesting
He might think you shouldn't have any backbone either
hemocyanin, not cyanoglobin (Score:2)
See this page about octopus circulatory systems [davidson.edu]. The oxygen carrying chemical is called hemocyanin, not cyanoglobin, and does contain copper.
Blue copper-based horseshoe crab blood also contains hemocyanin [sarasota.fl.us].
Even cooler than green blood? (Score:2)
Well adapted... (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything mutates, but the fittest survives. If the fittest is already well adapted then any mutation must be radical to offer an improvment - or conditions need to change so that the plant/creature is no longer competitive in its ecological niche.
However it isn't necessarily unique. We have also seen the same over shorter periods of time for animals. Think of the coelacanth, for example.
Re:Well adapted... (Score:2, Informative)
The Jurassic Period [enchantedlearning.com] was 206 to 144 Million Years Ago the coelacanth [dinofish.com] is 400 million years old!
Re:Well adapted... (Score:2)
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information_about_plants
It briefly explains how they came to the conclusion that this was a living fossil. Myself, I'm willing to take their word for it, because they've been in the field _much_ longer than I have
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Auracariacae are a group of conifers, just like pine trees and spruces. The best known is the monkey puzzle tree grown in temperate regions all over the world.Conifers are hard to clone, i.e. it's difficult to make the cuttings grow a root system.
There is an untapped geek factor in plants. Here's a chance to own a clone of a very rare species of a strange tree. As a biologist, it sound pretty cool to me!
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:2)
Seriously. You ever talk to a pot grower? Those nerds love their gear.
Re:The only plant survivor? (Score:2, Informative)
welcome! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:welcome! (Score:2)
Or (Score:2)
qualities? features? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Jurrasic Pot Plant" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant" (Score:2)
Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant" (Score:2)
Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant" (Score:2, Funny)
Just goes to show you why they called it the stone age.
As seen in the Jurassic age ?!?!?! (Score:2, Funny)
Sneaky... (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a Biologist/Biochemist/Bioinformatician myself this looks like an interesting addition to my house, I'm sold! Now, I wonder of there will be a sequencing project for it or I'll have to wait until the technology is cheap enough to do it myself...
I mean, it's the best way to make sure it really is a Jurassic plant and not something that merely looks like it. Sequence the sucker and throw a massive multiple alignment into ClustalW. I wonder wha
An interesting aside. (Score:2)
Which reminds me of a interesting friend of mine.
He was having some difficulty with his neighberhood association, so he planted protected wild flowers, rare cacti, and other various legally protected plants on his property. Then he let nature do as nature does.
Some one from the homeowner's association decided to take matters in their own hands and "trimmed"
recipe (Score:3, Funny)
Send through brontisorious first (Score:2)
I can't spell anything that long, but I think they would not be something to eat unless first processed by something like like a plant eating dinasour. Once you find one, feed it on these (could take a large forest) until fat, the butcher and serve like chicken. Feeds a small city.
Jurassic Firewood (Score:2)
Re:recipe (Score:2)
The flowering plants developed alongside animals and insects, and the ways we use and benefit each other are ama
This is the only plant survivor.... (Score:2, Funny)
I think this is a bit hyped. (Score:2)
It's true that the modern club moss is nothing but a shrub while its ancient ancestor that produced much of the coal we use today was a great big monster tree, but this Australian plant doesn't seem to be all that big either.
Re:I think this is a bit hyped. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I'd call almost 40 m big. Certainly bigger than moss. :-)
From the Royal Botanical Gardens site [rbgsyd.gov.au]: Tallest tree is 38.5 m
Re:I think this is a bit hyped. (Score:2)
Pygmification (Score:2)
OK, so you all knew this already.
Re:Pygmification (Score:2)
It just looks that way because the pot in the picture [bbc.co.uk] is enormous.
what about the dangers? (Score:3, Funny)
and not to mention all the bably trees getting eaten up by these Pre-historic creatures from a violent and vicious past..
We need to stop the re-introduction of these trees!
Where's greenpeace when you need them!!!!
(This piece of sillyness brought to you by the letter Q.)
I don't think so... (Score:2)
Dutch Elm's having to run for their lives, California redwoods huddled in fear...
I'm pretty confident those Redwoods would squash those Wollemi pines like a bug. And the Ducky Elms would gang up and beat the crap out of those decrepit pines. Evolution has spoken...
I like the first picture (Score:3, Funny)
Only survivors ... not quite (Score:3, Informative)
There are other plant species that are older e.g. Cycads [plantapalm.com].
Other living fossil plants (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently ginkos [nature.com] are also extremely old and resemeble a Jurassic variety. And Cycads, which are woody plants that create seeds. They also seem to be quite poisonous although they are eaten as "beach tucker" after processing in the jungle. (link [nd.edu]) Anyway here are some links [freeyellow.com].
Finally I there are also the extremely visually (and biochemically?) wierd Gymnopsperms [palomar.edu] like Welwitschia And Ephedra, which seem ancient, maybe same era..
All this because I was trying to figure out if the inch-long stem/leaf in my pocket which I snapped off a huge pencil plant was one of those. Not sure yet.. I remember my mother also has some kind of ancient plant which looks like a gray rock and does nothing, but then one day suddenly splits in half, and then each half will continue to split in the same way recursively. A very cool plant if anyone can figure out what it is!
P.S. Found the rock plant! (Score:4, Interesting)
Specifically it must have beenL. olivacea [supanet.com] which I guess means olive colored, since as in the photo it had no markings, it just looked like a beautiful hunk of chalky, greenish colored velvety living stone. Can't believe I found it. Some really bizarre, ugly, and beautiful pics on this page. Also more interesting photos here>/a> and [mesemb.org] here [geocities.com].
I also am thinking of throwing out the pencil plant (Euphorbia tirucalli) stem which will certainly take root by itself, but apparently [rain-tree.com] causes cancer! I wouldn't want a cat to eat it.
Re:P.S. Found the rock plant! (Score:2)
Re:P.S. Found the rock plant! (Score:2)
My botany teacher used to tell hilarious (in retrospect) stories of his childhood when his cousins would dare him to do this or that. Most memorable in his mind was when he licked the sap from a euphorb. Yuck.
Re:Other living fossil plants (Score:4, Interesting)
So, surrounded by the first land vertebrates, early wingless insects and some animals which would eventually evolve into the arachnids, the Equisetum grew and thrived for 30 million years, and watched the gymnosperms arrive. Another 130 million or so, and Equisetum watched the rise of the dinosaurs. Another 50 million and Equisetum watched the angiosperms (flowering plants) arrive and take over dominance of the plant world, and watched as the ecological shift started to kill off the dinosaurs. 30 million years later, Equisetum watched as the asteroid finished off the dinos and the twitchy little mammals found greatness thrust upon them. Over the next 140 million years, Equisetum watched as the mammals grew tall and short, big and small, flew and crawled and ran and swam.
Recently, Equisetum watched as one bunch of upstart, big-headed mammals learned to control fire, plants, other mammals, and go on to create ceramics, double entry accounting, antibiotics, TiVo and Mr. Coffee. If we think of Equisetum's long residency on Earth as a single year, starting on January 1, then humans showed up around 11:00pm on December 31.
Turn off the computer and go take a walk in the woods, folks. It's an amazing world we live in.
Re:Other living fossil plants (Score:2)
it's like geology and biology at once. and finances.
Hi, I'm Wollemi Pine, (Score:2)
Profits (Score:2)
Perhaps the cuttings don't produce ANY seeds? This would make them more robust for commercial propagation. Never mind robust propagation of the species. Or am I just tierd of hearing about "patented" and other proprietary biology?
Not Jurassic at all (Score:2)
I can see the marketing campaign now... (Score:2, Funny)
Odd that they are in NSW yet... (Score:2)
They are hiding the truth (Score:2)
I've seen one of those pine trees up close. (Score:5, Informative)
It is obvious even to a lay person like myself that it is a simpler, more primitive plant than modern trees.
Hmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If all they have are fossils 175 million years old, how do they come up with the 2 million number?
How about SCO officers? (Score:2, Funny)
Admittedly, this is an exciting prospect, but to really reach its potential, I think we should test this concept with SCO execs...
Uh oh (Score:2)
And if you want a more obscure reference, it's Return Of The Giant Hogweed all over again. :-o
Location not so 'top secret' anymore ! (Score:2)
fortunately the tree is in a "deep, narrow canyon" which I say will buy it maybe another day or two before annihilation !
Nice picture (Score:2)
Jurrasic Park (Score:2)
Market-driven species preservation (Score:2, Insightful)
What's next? Siberian tigers at the pet store? Blue whales for the home aquarium? Rainforest makeovers for your backyard? Y'know, it just might work!
Re:Sounds cool, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
So you could actually get one of these trees, and turn it into a "bonsai tree" (which is what I considered doing when I read the article)
---Lane
Re:Sounds cool, but.. (Score:2, Funny)
Where would you find a manor that big though?
Re:Sounds cool, but.. (Score:3, Funny)
Right. It works with some animals [bonsaikitten.com] too.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Re:Sounds cool, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, this is a plant not an animal, don't give it animal emotions and senses when making morality judgments. In the strictest sense, all the plant cares about is living longer to put out more seeds.
Just because you like it when a tree grows tall, doesn't mean the tree likes it. It just does that because it is programmed to (it is assuming it will have to be competing for light)
BONZAI!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
They Are... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Indoor"? (Score:2)
Like my grandparents for example. Except that they call it a breezeway. It's kind of like a floored room (with a roof) that extends from their house to their garage.
Brilliant really. The walls are mostly windowed (and nearly always open), but there's real doors and indoor furniture and such (with awnings keeping the occasional shower from blowing through the screens. For entertaining, they rarely have the guests inside the "real" house.
But
Re:Picture the scene.. (Score:2)
Re:Re-introducing life forms (Score:2)
Re:It's all coming true! (Score:2)