11–20 of 108 posts
The question we must ask ourselves is who were the true heros of those games? The plants that had developed to the point of nearly nuclear destructive capabilities? Or humanity, which may have had few options except for adopting the resilience of the undead to have any chance at survival against the Green Menace?
> "I suspect," says Graham, "that there might be more carnivorous plants out there than we think" This is a pretty interesting closing idea. From the article it seems they were originally flagged to this by a genomic commonality with other carnivorous plants. What percentage of plant genomes are sequenced that could be searched for this similar deletion?
Though as long as insects are the primary target I'm prepared to entertain the option of a cautious cold war rather than all-out destruction.
"Nobody would be looking at a flower stalk as the primary mode of carnivory" This is probably exactly what the plant is betting on. It's a nice perceptive check on our own individual intelligence as humans.
I'll think twice whenever I encounter a sticky plant part from now on.
Edit - obligatory:
Feed me, Seymour. Feed me all night long.
> "I suspect," says Graham, "that there might be more carnivorous plants out there than we think" This is a pretty interesting closing idea. From the article it seems they were originally flagged to this by a genomic commonality with other carnivorous plants. What percentage of plant genomes are sequenced that could be searched for this similar deletion?
Maybe I've just seen "Little Shop of Horrors" too many times but "interesting" seems a less accurate attitude for me towards these discoveries than kill it with fire! Though as long as insects are the primary target I'm prepared to entertain the option of a cautious cold war rather than all-out destruction.
For all our knowledge, there really is so much about all the other life around us we just don't understand.
Headline is a bit spun. The plant is known and has been attested since the 19th century. That it was carnivorous is the new discovery. It has a sticky stem, and is (somehow, though it seems like they didn't identify a mechanism) digesting insects that get stuck to it.
"New carnivorous attribute of known plant discovered in Pacific Northwest", perhaps?
Headline is a bit spun. The plant is known and has been attested since the 19th century. That it was carnivorous is the new discovery. It has a sticky stem, and is (somehow, though it seems like they didn't identify a mechanism) digesting insects that get stuck to it.
"Spun" is a little harsh. It's not easy to say concisely and the shorter version wouldn't capture significantly more audience that the longer version (IMO). "New carnivorous attribute of known plant discovered in Pacific Northwest", perhaps?
I don’t understand why not just say it — it sounds pretty exciting to me.
Headline is a bit spun. The plant is known and has been attested since the 19th century. That it was carnivorous is the new discovery. It has a sticky stem, and is (somehow, though it seems like they didn't identify a mechanism) digesting insects that get stuck to it.
"Spun" is a little harsh. It's not easy to say concisely and the shorter version wouldn't capture significantly more audience that the longer version (IMO). "New carnivorous attribute of known plant discovered in Pacific Northwest", perhaps?