Jurassic Plants Make A Comeback

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.

Comments

Sounds cool, but..

[Gwala]

Sure this sounds cool, but who here seriously is going to want one? It's a plant, albeit an older species, but still if you want something that grows slowly, get a bonsai.

-Gwala

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[thefirelane]

Bonsai is a technique not a species. Literally in Japanese, it means "tree in pot". You can take any number of species of tree, and "bonsai" them. This involves restricting the roots, reducing the leaf size, and pruning it in such a manor that the small tree appears like a miniature version of the larger tree (as opposed to just a young tree).

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..

[Anonymous Coward]

pruning it in such a manor that the small tree appears like a miniature version of the larger tree

Where would you find a manor that big though?

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[godders]

Me, I'll buy one, in fact i was looking for the thinkgeek link before i'd actually read the article ;)
I think it's decent enough idea. Hey, at least it's a vaguely interesting reason to own a particular plant

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[kinnell]

Bonsai is a technique not a species

Right. It works with some animals too.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

but still if you want something that grows slowly, get a bonsai.

But, but, but... I don't even like cats!

(The link may be down, but this is slashdot, get used to it:)

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[princewally]

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw this article, too. I have a few bonsai maple trees, but I think this would be a better addition to my collection.

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[thefirelane]

Considering the plants are much healthier, and live much longer than they would naturally... I'm not loosing any sleep.

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).


Thanks for the troll,
---Lane

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[narftrek]

You can also have your Bonsai kitties crash thier bonsai cars!!.

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[cfuse]

Literally in Japanese, it means "tree in pot".

Now that's just taking all the elegance away from the language. Shame on you.

eh?

[wiggys]

This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.

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?

[Alinabi]

By the same token, all animals in existance today are survivors from the Jurassic age. However, I'm sure you would agree that finding a dinosaur alive and well somewhere on Earth would be slightly more significant than identifying a new species of monkeys.

The importance of this discovery resides in the fact that scientists can actually confirm or infirm things they could only hypothesize based on fossils. 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.

Re:eh?

[mlush]

>>This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.
>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.

All animals we see around today are survivors from the Jurassic age. Sure, they are descendants, but so is the Coelacanth. Ergo humans were around in the Jurassic age and One Million Years BC is a documentary

Re:eh?

[1u3hr]

This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.

That line wasn't in the BBC article. It seems very unlikely. A cursory Google search turns up Jurassic Plants which says

Conifers (like Araucarioxylon) were the dominant land plant during the Jurassic period. Other land plants included Ginkgophytes (like Ginkgos), club mosses, horsetails, ferns, seed ferns, Sphenopsids (like Neocalamites), Filincophyta (like Matonidium), Cycadeodia (like Otozamites, Ptilophyllum, and Cycadeoidea), and cycadophytes.

Mesozoic Era conifers included redwoods, yews, pines, the monkey puzzle tree (Araucaria), cypress, Pseudofrenelopsis (a Cheirolepidiacean).

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?

[JJ]

New Zealand is perfectly awash in the flora of Jurassic age plant life. Ever hear of Gondwanaland? It was the southern continent that broke from Pangea. NZ is a remnant. NZ never got flowering plants (until man brought them in.) Also, the ginko was very common in the Jurassic age. My hometown has the Morton Arboretum, which cultivates ginkos.

Re:eh?

[SpinyNorman]

I think the intented assertion was unchanged survivor... it's identical to the fossilized examples, same as the Coelacanth can be considered a Jurassic survivor. One thing interesting about species like these is why they havn't evolved ... are they a genetic "dead-end of perfection", or is there something about their genetics and/or behavior that precludes viable adaptation?

Re:eh?

[CrazyTalk]

Yes, but this plant is the base class. Subclasses do not count.

Re:eh?

[amateur bore]

One thing interesting about species like these is why they havn't evolved ... are they a genetic "dead-end of perfection", or is there something about their genetics and/or behavior that precludes viable adaptation?

I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about 'living fossil' species. What is unusual is the environments in which they occur. Usually, living fossils are found in environments that have undergone very little change or disturbance over time so the selective forces acting on the species have also changed very little. Evolutionary change essentially tracks changes in a species' circumstances e.g. environment, predators or competitors. Without these changes there is no reason for directional evolutionary trends to occur.

Re:eh?

[Mooncaller]

I had to laugh when I read the headline, as I just minuets ago finished doing my watering. Plants include norfolk pine ( Araucaria), sago palm (cycas), and zamia (zamiaceae, in same order with cycadaceae). I will need to move some of my plants soon because the shade from a redwood is starting to block the morning sun.

Re:eh?

[RatBastard]

One thing interesting about species like these is why they havn't evolved[?]

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.

Re:eh?

[bob_jenkins]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's something in their genes that turns off evolution. That there are genes that control how fast mutations can appear. Some species have these genes turned all the way up. Perhaps others have it turned all the way down. What's the mutation rate of blue-green algae?

Re:eh?

[bsharma]

And so are the many Algae and Fungi. Probably most of Thallophytes, Bryophytes and even many Teridophytes are from Jurrassic. So are (among animals) most protozoans and other invertibrates.

Re:eh?

[line.at.infinity]

However, the ginkgo plants are not native to NZ.

Re:eh?

[line.at.infinity]

I think it's not about its genes per se that allowed it to remained unchanged, but rather there were a lack of change in environment that would have caused evolution, such as new predators or new competitors.

Re:eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lisle? Or is there another Morton Arboretum in New Zealand?

Re:eh?

[Ross Finlayson]

"NZ never got flowering plants"

Huh? What about the Kowhai? The Pohutukawa? Or are you distinguishing between 'plants' and 'trees'?

Ross.

Re:eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the only survivor of this type of tree - they were all thought to be extinct.

(The summary's misleading)

Re:eh?

[JJ]

Lisle is my hometown, but I did my grad work in New Zealand.

Re:eh?

[fm6]

Sure, but not all plant species date back to the Jurassic age. Or animal species (thank god for that!). If somebody had used the term living fossil, perhaps it would be clearer.

Re:eh?

[Reziac]

From the article:

The initial plan was to extract seeds from the tips of the pines. This involved a scientist dangling from a helicopter and was not very successful. Working with cuttings has proven to be much more satisfactory in producing a robust plant for commercial propagation.

This does make me wonder to what degree it's more hoped to get high prices for commercial specimens, and less intended to restore the species (how do we know it won't decide to become a pest plant, like mustard or saltcedar??)

In the modern world, most pines grow readily from seed, but are difficult to propagate from cuttings (requiring specific soil and moisture conditions, and application of rooting hormone). When a species does root from cuttings, it often takes several months to achieve.

That aside, it's a pretty tree and apparently doesn't mind being pot-bound, as the robust specimen pictured in the far-too-small pot demonstrates (it doesn't have the "bonsai'd" needles such as one would see in a plant that doesn't tolerate root-crowding well). Which is a good trait in a tree destined for indoor placement.

Re:eh?

[Reziac]

Cripes, all I need to do is ignore whatever grows after our rare desert rains, and in 5 days flat the entire place looks like Jurassic Weedpark!

Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's from the Jurassic age? And there have been other fossils of this tree found elsewhere in the world? Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

You didn't so much misunderstand something as hallucinate a complete theory of the formation of Australia. Where on Earth (or in space) did you get this crazy foolish moon theory?

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Australia. A moon that fell from the sky. I must admit that's a new one for me, excuse me while I put it on the shelf next to my collection of Hollow Earth and other idiotic and improbable geological claptrap theories.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

holy crap....

What freak-science paper's sites have you been reading?

try reading real science for once... .then come back and talk to us.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Jugalator]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent?

According to the most common theories...

Australia was part of Pangea 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 sounds like the work of someone who has no insight into continental drifts at all, thinking that "hmm, Australia is a fuckin' big island, perhaps it's from a moon??" :-)

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[1u3hr]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

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?

[Flingles]

/me thinks that some smart people aren't smart enough to know when someones having a joke.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Zoop]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent?

It was, but the inhabitants stole them. We're just looting their stash.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not a moon!

That's a space station!

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more reason for it to come from outer space, where there are no geological processes to bury rock.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[tsa]

anyway and I don't see how a moon (!) impact would form Australia in specific.

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?

[theTerribleRobbo]

No!

Sense!

Of!

Humour!

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Jugalator]

You found it funny?

OK, I'll hereby remember that jokes about moons creating continents is considered funny, for some strange reason. :-S

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[theTerribleRobbo]

I was hoping, HOPING that this was a joke.

Noone seriously believes it, do they? :-D
*Trembles*

It is not the only one (for now)

[arivanov]

There is another relict grove in Pitcunda on the Russian Black Sea coast. Due to something noone so far understands which happened over the last 600 or so years it no longer reproduces. The peninsula itself is slowly sinking into the sea after several earthquakes in the region in the 60-es.

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)

[MrOrn]

I don't know where you got your info from, but it doesn't appear accurate. The only examples of the species are in Australia.

The UNESCO World Heritage site doesn't mention your grove, only the Australian one.

For more info on the Wollemi pine, visit here.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[arivanov]

Corect, not the same species. But relict as well.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[arivanov]

On your other comment: It is on the border of this: Western Caucasus (N ii, iv/ 1999). Possibly incorporated into it as it was a site prior to 1999. Dunno. Too many wars there and I have not been in the region for 20+ years.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[rarkm]

An arcane factoid: I think that one of the relatives of this pine listed in the Australian information link, "Agathis (Kauri Pines)", furnishes wood for makers of traditional Go boards. If you want to take a look, look here: http://www.yutopian.com/go/table/tk135.html

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 and design had roots in divination and religious ceremonies, but I'm no expert, I merely note the connection here.

Go players and the game itself is as much about the physical beauty of the game as it is about the beauty of the logical relationships between opposing forces.

Another good site to look at is www.samarkand.net

To continue in this arcane vein, the premium wood for Go boards is katsura, valued primarily for its somewhat more interesting grain. For information about Go, try www.usgo.org, or www.britgo.org.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know of any sites that have pictures of the grove? That sounds really interesting, but I haven't found anything good by googling. Thanks!

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[kin_korn_karn]

Agathis is also used to make cheap electric guitars. Many of the very low-end Ibanez models are made of Agathis, as well as most Squiers.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[rarkm]

I didn't know that, but yes, I am exactly as cool as I think I am.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[Reziac]

When I went off looking for info on propagating pines from cuttings, I came across info to the effect that in some cases where a grove has reached a certain "age" it stops reproducing, and at that point you may have more luck with cuttings (not usually successful with most pines) than seeds (which such groves no longer produce). Also that the trees grown from cuttings sometimes have "adult" characteristics from the gitgo.

It may be that by change an entire grove reaches the senile stage at once. This isn't uncommon with wild stands of, frex, white ash, which has about a 60 year lifespan. If the entire grove is around the same age (as could happen following a forest fire and an initial chance reseeding) then they'll all stop flowering at about the same time. If deer have been eating/killing all the recent seedlings, so there is no replacement generation, when the old trees die that's the end of the stand.

The only plant survivor?

[Max Romantschuk]

How do we know this is the only plant species to survive? What are the criteria? DNA mutates all the time, so how is this plant different?

Re:The only plant survivor?

[VPN3000]

Yeah, Max, I was thinking the same thing. It's not like they pulled this plant out of a block of permafrost with a specific date on it. Species of plants come and go all the time, especially on volcanic islands. Of course, they are going to find undocumented plants every few years as these cycles occur.

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 information and free advertising.

Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth? Look in the mirror. Wow. There, the same gimmik and you didn't have to spend thousands of dollars on a silly little tree.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[Max Romantschuk]

Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth? Look in the mirror.

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?

[deek]

Take a look at this site:

http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information_about_plants/ wollemi_pine

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?

[axolotl_farmer]

What is remarkable about this tree is not its age, but that it is a recently discovered species only known from a few specimens. This species could not be placed within any of the described groups within Auracariacacae, so it has been placed in a new genus, Wollemia.

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?

[jdreed1024]

Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth?

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. 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.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[SpinyNorman]

One interesting thing about the Wollemi (apart from the fact that close-up it looks cool and wierd - more fern-like than tree-like), is that the group that were discovered are all genetically identical - they spread by shooting rather than sexually, so their DNA may in fact be very close to that of the Jurassic era fossilized examples.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[Hatta]

There is an untapped geek factor in plants.

Seriously. You ever talk to a pot grower? Those nerds love their gear.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[mooncrow]

jdreed1024 --thanks for the link--fascinating stuff. I'd encourage others to check out the link, especially medical uses of the horseshoe crab. I knew previously about the rabbit safety check for injectable drugs, but had never heard of the widespread use of horseshoe crab blood for almost all of these tests today. Wow.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with mushroom growers, magic or otherwise.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[fucksl4shd0t]

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 :).

Eh heh. While I agree with you in spirit, I must say that they probably haven't had sex in as many fields as I have. ;)

Re:The only plant survivor?

[Awptimus Prime]

I used to love picking those things up and dangling them over my shoulder. Horseshoe crabs make excellent back scratchers. :)

welcome!

[andy666]

i for one welcome our rare jurassic plant overlords!

Re:welcome!

[ebuck]

And I for one welcome our carbon-based posting bots!

Re:welcome!

[andy666]

hey i am a real human boy with real feelings!!!!!

qualities? features?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything else special about this plant other than its been around since the jurassic period? I can see these saplings going for a huge sum so for that I'll like to know why I or anyone would want to fork out big $$ for it.

Re:qualities? features?

[kryliss]

It'll be yet another thing for the 'rich' to have so they can impress thier other 'rich' friends. It's a status thing....
Rich people, they are so shallow and delicate. Send them to the poor house and watch them wither and die.......

"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[echucker]

Sorry kids, it's not what you thought. Take a look.

Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[Zenjive]

Now you can get stoned back to the Jurassic age! Prehistoric, man!

Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[trash eighty]

"pot plant" means indoor house plant in the UK, not any kind of recreational drug, just in case you were confused ;)

Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[ebuck]

( Can't resist! )

Just goes to show you why they called it the stone age.

Re:"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah so uh.. has anyone tried smoking it yet? You never know!

As seen in the Jurassic age ?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

so, did they have plant pots in the Jurrassic age ?

Re-introducing life forms

[Manos Batsis]

... may have side effects that are extremely difficult to estimate. That or i'm reading too much small world literature lately.

Re:Re-introducing life forms

[temojen]

Try googling for alien plant pest. Our most pernicious local variety (on Vancouver Island) is the scotch broom.

Picture the scene..

[adeyadey]

(a couple sleeping in a bed)

Honey whats that roaring noise from downstairs?

Oh no, now did you to feed the Jurassic pine like I asked you to?

Re:Picture the scene..

[Anonymous Coward]

(a couple sleeping in a bed)

Nah, you've lost me.....

Re:Picture the scene..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I got that bit.

Oh no, now did you to feed the Jurassic pine

Now he's lost me.

Re:Picture the scene..

[LeoDV]

I'm guessing the plant must be kept away from bright light, never given water, and definitely never, ever be fed after midnight? ;-)

Sneaky...

[Walkiry]

Neat way to get nerdy types to buy plants for the house.

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 what I'll have to wait for, sequencing being cheap enough or terabytes of memory being commonplace.

recipe

[lanswitch]

Does anybody know how they taste, and how i should cook 'em?

Re:recipe

[payslee]

I know you're just joking, but I've always found it kind of interesting that older plants, like these and other conifers, ferns, etc, really don't have any use for us animals, and so never developed parts (fruits, tubers, nuts, greens, whatever) that we like to eat. These families were mature a long time before mammals were around, and use other arrangements, chiefly wind and water, to reproduce.

The flowering plants developed alongside animals and insects, and the ways we use and benefit each other are amazing. Many botanists think that's why flowering plants diversified so quickly and spread so widely. They found ways to benefit from animal mobility and all the tastiness of fruit, the beauty of flowers (sometimes in UV patterns for the benefit of insect vision), and the nutrition found in cereals came about because they found partners who value those things, and thus helped the plants reproduce, intentionally or otherwise.

So finding an "unchanged" relic from that time is pretty cool. These are plants that don't need us, but at the same time their ranges and numbers have shrunk over millenia, because they can't use us either. The flowering trees, plants and grasses have exploded in number and diversity, and the older families hang on here or there, in specialized conditions.

There's a great book I recommend on the interaction of people and plants called The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan. He traces four plants closely tied up with human culture - apples, tulips, potatoes, and cannabis - and traces how we have changed each other.

So yeah, don't count on these being edible, since having edible parts wasn't a useful survival trait in the time of its prime. But they're still cool.

Re:recipe

[lanswitch]

These are plants that don't need us, but at the same time their ranges and numbers have shrunk over millenia, because they can't use us either.

I think that in some strange way they are using us right now in order to survive. I don't think they did it on purpose, though.

Re:recipe

[Reziac]

Use the same recipe as for Crottled Greeps. (Does anyone have a copy of that? I can't find it anymore.)

It might also be useful as the bedding for Planked Carp.

Gingko anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gingko trees are dated back 120 million years to the creatoceous era

This is the only plant survivor....

[PS-SCUD]

This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.... Obviously, these people haven't seen the mold under my bed.

Re:This is the only plant survivor....

[Anonymous Coward]

bah mold under your bed is only a decendent from the mold behind my toilet...Its the mack daddy of all mold. Hell it spoke to me and ask for a cig the last time I was in there.

Re:This is the only plant survivor....

[LMariachi]

Molds aren't plants, they're fungi.

I think this is a bit hyped.

[ahfoo]

While it's neat and all, I think it's worth considering that the common club moss that is considered a pest all over the Rockies is a descendent of the Lepidodendrons from the Carboniferous period which is almost twice as far back as the Jurassic.
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.

[MrOrn]

...but this Australian plant doesn't seem to be all that big either.

Well, I'd call almost 40 m big. Certainly bigger than moss. :-)

From the Royal Botanical Gardens site: Tallest tree is 38.5 m

Re:I think this is a bit hyped.

[ahfoo]

Oh, you're right. Nevermind. That's more than a shrub. Indeed, that's almost as big as the Lepidodendron's ancestors. I thought it was only four meters. I saw the story elsewhere a while back and I thought they said it was smaller than that.
I stand corrected.
But, the club moss is misnamed. It's not a moss. It's a shrub. It looks cool too. The reason many people consider it a pest is because it grows partially underground and it's full or thorns so it's miserable to try and remove. That semi-underground growth is also why it was mistaken for a moss.
Indeed, the plant of the Rockies are generally quite a trip. Aspens are also known to have shared root systems extending for miles. The original Internet.

Re:I think this is a bit hyped.

[davejenkins]

I saw "Pando" a grove of Aspen that is now acknowledged as the largest living creature on earth. It is in the mountains in central Utah, where I used to work as a tour guide.

Re:I think this is a bit hyped.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Oh, you're right. Nevermind. That's more than a shrub.

In other news, the US has elected a single member of an unusual tree fournd in Australia to be the next President of the United States. Polls indicate that the new President was chosen "in the need to get the shrub out of office."

Well adapted...

[hughk]

First, this has been around for a while and a sapling is on display at the Sydney Botanical Gardens. Yes, the announcement is pure PR for the company developing the technqiues, but the plant did cause a stir when it was first discovered. It was literally a living fossil, as that was how it was first seen.

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...

[mlush]

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.

The Jurassic Period was 206 to 144 Million Years Ago the coelacanth is 400 million years old!

Re:Well adapted...

[hughk]

The coelacanth was not the same species, just the same family as the fossils. This is actually an example of something that from the leves, appears to be the same species.

Re:Well adapted...

[richmaine]

"literally a living fossil"?

Are you using the word "literally" literally to mean "literally", or are you using "literally" figuratively to mean "figuratively"? :-)

I find the widespread practice of using the word "literally" to mean its exact opposite to be a bit strange.

Re:Well adapted...

[fucksl4shd0t]

I find the widespread practice of using the word "literally" to mean its exact opposite to be a bit strange.

Well, I literally thought that this post of yours was literally pretty fuckin' stupid. I mean, of all the things to do, to point out that the parent literally used the word "literally" correctly, and all the time it must've taken you to do it!

"Indoor"?

[Froggie]

Wh, exactly, has an indoor patio?

Re:"Indoor"?

[Anonymous Coward]

the scary thing is if one of these things fell over it could crack your spine in half, much alike the xbox controller. RIP garfield.

Re:"Indoor"?

[ebuck]

Point well taken, but you know, somebody has to have one. ;-)

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 they'd better be targeting a different market, as I can't see my grandma buying one of these.

Jurassic...

[shione]

When I read that I saw 'Jurassic Park' and thought they were doing the fourth installment.

Pygmification

[heironymouscoward]

Why is the plant is so small? Jurassic plants were much larger because the CO2 content was higher and the planet was warmer and damper. Quite a difference between that and modern Australia. It's typical of species that survive in niche environments that they adapt to shortage of nutrients by shrinking over time.

OK, so you all knew this already.

Re:Pygmification

[RedPhoenix]

It's not really - the one in the Canberra Botanic Gardens is about twice my height, and it's a young one aparently.

Re:Pygmification

[kinnell]

Why is the plant is so small?

It just looks that way because the pot in the picture is enormous.

Re:Pygmification

[Anonymous Coward]

its not
http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information_about_pl ants/ wollemi_pine

Re:Pygmification

[MrOrn]

It's not small -- the photo is of a sapling.

The tree grows to about 40 m high. (Read about it here.)

Re:Pygmification

[Anonymous Coward]

Jurassic plants were much larger because the CO2 content was higher and the planet was warmer and damper.

Yet more evidence that SUVs spewing greenhouse gasses are merely returning the earth to a more pritine state.

what about the dangers?

[Lumpy]

Other plants have thrived without these Ravenous trees roaming the planet... now bringing them back will cause devastation on an enourmous scale. Dutch Elm's having to run for their lives, California redwoods huddled in fear...

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.)

Re:what about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess GP has to prioritize. Seing as how these're basically strictly indoor plants, slow growers, and need low light conditions, the risks don't seem all that Greenpeace-worthy.

If only Greenpeace had been around in 1900, they might have stalled the introduction of asiatic chestnuts -- the shrubby dwarf relations of our massive native trees, and the carriers of chestnut blight to this country. The dominant non-mast food source of our native eastern forests might still be around, then, and all the animals that relied on those trees... Or maybe they'd have prevented the introduction of starlings and house sparrows, both of which kill native cavity-nesting birds' nestlings in astonishing numbers. Preventing one of those two blights would easily justify the cost of Greenpeace's entire existence.

Those sillinesses brought to you by landscape nurseries and aristocratic idiots who liked the idea of introducing every bird in the works of Shakespeare to the new world...

They Are...

[Cyno01]

Uh-oh.

Re:They Are...

[Animats]

Did #3 ever show in theaters? Or did it go direct to video rental?

Re:They Are...

[Cyno01]

It made it to theaters, it still had spielbergs name attached to it i think. Not that he directed it, but like "Steven Spielberg's: Taken", or any of Tom Clancy's series.

perhaps they meant

[Anonymous Coward]

that it's the only extant plant species from the jurassic era, all other plant species that were around at that time subsequently becoming extinct.

Remember ...

[da5idnetlimit.com]

the movie.

"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 ...

[magarity]

So they "resurrected" an old, old plant from the few remaining survivors

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]?

I like the first picture

[The-Bus]

The first picture in the article has it "as seen in the Jurassic age" (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39379000/jp g/_39379242_203.jpg) --- of course the plant is IN A POT. I didn't know that before humans had the bronze age and the iron age the dinosaurs had the terracotta age.

Re:I like the first picture

[Anonymous Coward]

the ol duplicate comment ploy huh ?

Re:I like the first picture

[richmaine]

I was also slightly curious about how they managed to get a picture of it from the Jurassic age, but I suppose that would probably be a trade secret.

What they aren't saying.

[Anonymous Coward]

What they didn't tell you about was the Jurassic dinosaur that they found with it...by the time WW3 rolls around, Australia will have a nice army of T-Rexs to run you down with.

I know some Jurassic survivors!

[GdoL]

I think I have a Jurassic survivor here working with me.

Only survivors ... not quite

[Siener]

Nowhere does the acticle say that they are the only plant suvivors from the Jurassic age. What makes them unique is the fact that they where thought to be extinct. Before they were found, only 175 million year old fossils of them were known.

There are other plant species that are older e.g. Cycads.

(Metasequoia glyptostroboides)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a tree 'discovered' in the 1940's in China. It too was 'lost' and has now been 'found'.

Last time I went looking for seeds, I could get 'em at 50 seeds for $1.50.

An impressive tree, and can be timber for humans later.

We want you to grow them...

[timelady]

...to be the first link in the food chain for when we start cloning the dinosaurs again!
Damn.
*makes note to self: stop giving away evil world domination plans - it RUINS the surprise for everyone!*

Other living fossil plants

[mattr]

This was really interesting so I googled. Cavet: IANA Paleobotanist.

Apparently ginkos 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) Anyway here are some links.

Finally I there are also the extremely visually (and biochemically?) wierd Gymnopsperms 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!

Re:Other living fossil plants

[The Fun Guy]

How about my favorite living fossil plant, the genus Equisetum, the horsetail ferns? Also known as scouring rushes, they incorporate silica in their stems and make them feel like sandpaper. This is the only surviving genus of the only surviving family (Equisetaceae) of the only surviving order (Equisetales) of a class (Sphenopsida) that emerged during the Devonian Period, around 375 million years ago, some 200 million years before the Jurassic Period (~175 mya).

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

[Hubert_Shrump]

you don't have to go out in the woods - horsetails will rip through your driveway for you.

it's like geology and biology at once. and finances.

Re:Other living fossil plants

[sohp]

And don't forget the Dawn Redwood. Thought to be extinct and known only from fossils until specimens were discovered in China in the 40s.

Oblig Farside quote

[RedBear]

I guess it really was... the "Age of Beets".

Oh, wrong plant, nemmind... razafrazzit...

Hi, I'm Wollemi Pine,

[Epistax]

You might remember me from such times as when little Jimmy fell into the tar pit, or when the meteor came and destroyed the world.

Beowulf joke..... with a twist

[hashwolf]

What do you call a beowulf cluster of these?

A Jurassic park!

It's a Tragedy When a Good Pun is Lost

[taaminator]

Make that "Jurassic Bark."

Well here's an idea then...

[WIAKywbfatw]

...This look like an interesting addition to any home, even if the article's title is a bit of a misnomer.

Well, here's an idea for you editors then - EDIT! It is traditional (at least it is everywhere but Slashdot) for editors to actually edit. Why not join the club?

Re:Well here's an idea then...

[korinthian]

I believe the reference was to the title of the BBC article, not the submitted text. I presume it was also a joke, poking fun at the british use of "pot plant" rather than "potted plant"

Advanced dinos!

[ghostis]

The caption to the plant pic says:
"As seen in the Jurassic age"

I didn't know dinos knew how to pot plants, let alone make plant pots ;-).

-ghostis

Profits

[gr8_phk]

" Working with cuttings has proven to be much more satisfactory in producing a robust plan for commercial propagation."

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?

P.S. Found the rock plant!

[mattr]

Well thanks to slashdot I got my brain back in gear on this question after several years. I am pretty sure that the thing which looks like a rock is in fact a lithop, which is a type of succulent from South Africa often called a living stone, of the the plant family Mesembryanthemaceae (now called Aizoaceae) or "Mesembs" for short (google that and go nuts!).

Specifically it must have beenL. olivacea 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 here.

I also am thinking of throwing out the pencil plant (Euphorbia tirucalli) stem which will certainly take root by itself, but apparently causes cancer! I wouldn't want a cat to eat it.

Re:P.S. Found the rock plant!

[mattr]

or maybe L. meyeri..

Re:P.S. Found the rock plant!

[payslee]

Yeah, most of the euphorbiaceae are really poisonous and weird looking. But the taste is reputedly so caustic and horrible that I don't imagine an animal would be tempted to eat enough to be injured, so you should be safe.

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:P.S. Found the rock plant!

[Reziac]

[reads link about pencil plant] I wonder if chronic exposure to this plant's chemicals is why EBV commonly causes cancer in Africa, but not in the U.S.??

And this one just goes to show how bogus most herbal "medicine" is -- read all the things it's used to "treat" in Africa, yet it actually makes matters worse!

I don't think so...

[slashdot_commentator]

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...

But can they run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

(ducks)

For the record...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to be needlessly pedantic, the Jurassic was a period in the Mesozoic era, in the presently ongoing Phanerozoic eon. The Jurassic was, strictly speaking, not an "age." Ages aren't part of the relative geologic time scale that defines the Jurassic period.

The Jurassic lasted from a little more than 206 million years ago, on up through about 145 million years ago. The answer to the question of when the Jurassic began and ended will vary depending on who you ask...this is just the sort of thing that geologists and paleontologists might argue about while they're waiting for the coffee to brew.

Duuuude- Jurassic Pot Plants

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to read the BBC article title a couple of times... ...need more caffeine!

Save Australia

[POds]

This is fantastic, and its amazing that these have survived. They have not only endured a coupla million years or whatever it was, but also inbreading.

Australia has one of the worst track records when it comes to land clearing and so much of the country is still undiscovered. Its so vast, that most parts of teh country dont get rain for years, yet some get it every day.

Australia needs to better protect its deserts, scrub land, rain forest, wet lands, snow fields and tropical oasis's because there are so many untapted resources that could lie the curers for many diseases. But more than that, i love this Country, and i'd still like to see it in the near future. Hopfuly in a better state than it is now.

Its also even more fantastic that these tree's continue to survive because of the amount of fires in the Blue Montains where the trees were discovered.

Re:Save Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Australia does need to be more careful in managing its environmental assets. I live in a special rural zone near Perth in Western Australia and near where i live (within a few kilometers of my house) large areas of pristine bushland have been mowed down to make room for houses. There used to be a lot of wetlands near my house as well but when they need to build houses they just dump sand in them and drain the ground water so the new houses dont flood. It makes me feel sick they way they are changing the area I have lived in for over 16 years from special rural to high density.

Not Jurassic at all

[fruey]

According to the article here the first fossils are from the later cretaceous period...

Send through brontisorious first

[bluGill]

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.

Eh. no.

[ebuck]

Nearly all the plants we see around us today are species which were not around during the Jurassic age.

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. no.

[skywire]

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.

Hardly. Individuals of the same species cannot, by definition, crossbreed. But individuals of related species often can.

I can see the marketing campaign now...

[Infamous Coward]

This holiday season, give the gift that keeps on giving... for 175 million years.

An interesting aside.

[ebuck]

I'll bet that a plant like this would still have a protected status, even a few years after it's cloning assures it's continual (for now) existence.

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" up a rare cactus (after he informed that his yard was off limits due to the protected nature of the plants). I had never seen an association hit with so many government backed lawsuits before, very amusing.

And yes, we were both Biologists (at least back then)

Research supports this view

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't misunderstand anything.
Australia is indeed a moon that collided with Earth. This collision killed the dinosaurs. The only thing that survived was this plant.

The moon imparts special properties to Australians. They can stand down under and not fall. And they think "sledging" is polite.

Re:Research supports this view

[ShadowRage]

not to mention most australians I've met are complete space cases ;)

BONZAI!!!!

[A55M0NKEY]

Hmm, a naturally wierd looking, naturally slow growing exotic tree... People who will make a BONZAI!!!!! out of them are people with tattoos of their butt with butt shaped tattoos on them tattooed on their butt...

Odd that they are in NSW yet...

[N Monkey]

I found it a bit odd that the report says they were discovered in an isolated area of the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, yet they are being developed commercially as a joint venture with a Queensland Gov Department. The QLD border is ~1000km away. Long way to travel.

Re:Odd that they are in NSW yet...

[MrOrn]

Not really that odd -- they are a rainforest tree. There are lots of rainforest pockets in the dry sclerophyll that is behind much of the NSW coast. However, as a rainforest tree, it is more likely to get a better match for its preferred environment in tropical Queensland.

They are hiding the truth

[Hoi Polloi]

If this was a proper Hollywood movie they would also announce that they found a Triceratops munching on the pines. I want my own Triceratops!

I've seen one of those pine trees up close.

[bertok]

I saw a few saplings over a year ago. They were being grown next to the ranger's office at a nearby national park, but all of them were surrounded by wire fences for protection. They look a lot like pine trees, but the needles are shorter and fatter, and the trunk and branches are covered in what looks more like densely packed and dried out needles than 'real' bark.

It is obvious even to a lay person like myself that it is a simpler, more primitive plant than modern trees.

Hmmm....

[Arjuna Theban]

"It had been thought to have been extinct for at least two million years. The only known examples were fossils 175 million years old."

If all they have are fossils 175 million years old, how do they come up with the 2 million number?

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these days dipshits will reply with the answer rather than moderate questions "overrated".

How about SCO officers?

[Roadkills-R-Us]

``involved scientists dangling from a helicopter''

Admittedly, this is an exciting prospect, but to really reach its potential, I think we should test this concept with SCO execs...

Re:How about SCO officers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot could (or even would) someone take a story like this and work SCO into it. Good Lord, go out and get some fresh air people!

Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock!

[spineboy]

Horseshoe crab blood makes use of a copper based heme group to carry oxygen as opposed to an iron based one that the majority of animals(and we) use. Ceruloplasm as stated above does have a nice blue color to it, which Mr Spock (being a Vulcan and having a supposedly copper based green blod) would be surprised to find out.

Re:Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock!

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleive octopuses also have copper-based blood, using cyanoglobin instead of hemoglobin (I think). As I recall, it is less efficient at transporting oxygen than hemoglobin. Octopuses tire quickly.

Re:Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock!

[AJWM]

Yep, hemocyanin is blue.

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).

"the fittest survives"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's circular reasoning - one that most people don't stop to think about.

"Fitness" is defined as "surviving".

Read this.

Blinded scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, the tree's home is a closely guarded secret. No roads lead to the area. Even scientists studying them are blindfolded as they are flown by helicopter to the site.

GPS ... anyone ?

Re:Blinded scientists

[Airneil]

>> Today, the tree's home is a closely guarded secret. No roads lead to the area. Even scientists studying them are blindfolded as they are flown by helicopter to the site.

Is the pilot blindfolded?

Uh oh

[HarveyBirdman]

It's Day Of The Trifids all over again. :-(

And if you want a more obscure reference, it's Return Of The Giant Hogweed all over again. :-o

Even cooler than green blood?

[Unknown Poltroon]

They got three eyes!! THeres lots of other interesting things about them, look em up.

Imagine a beow....

[Anonymous Coward]

of THAT.

Think you can do better?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Australia needs to better protect its deserts, scrub land, rain forest, wet lands, "


Huh? The species survived in the wild for a mere 175 MILLION years. It's original location is being kept secret, and, to preserve it further, it's being reproduced commercially.

Get the government subsidized enviro-whackos involved and they'll find reasons to ban the use of automobiles and cell phones across 40% of the continent.

Well, actually,

[da5idnetlimit.com]

I AM against their releasing...

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

License Fee

[avgjoe62]

I understand that SCO claims that these trees are actually branches of their UNIX tree and anyone that grows one of these will have to pay a $699 fee, except in Australia...

Jurassic Firewood

[l810c]

Does anybody know how they taste, and how i should cook 'em? No, no, no. You cook With Them, like Mesquite or Hickory. So next time your BBQing some Potato Chips, try some Wollemi.

It's all coming true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting that offspring of the Velociraptor mongoliensis will go on sale by the end of 2005. This is the only animal survivor from the Upper Cretaceous age [1]. After it was discovered in 1994 in a single Australian grove, the dinosaur's home has been kept a top secret. Research to find the best way to grow the raptors on a commercial scale has now paid off and the animals are set for a return. As they are intelligent and like eating people they will be marketed as lawyers."

[1] in your face, Spielberg, I can get it right ;-)

Re:It's all coming true!

[Little Brother]

Except that Velociraptors are a bit to small to eat humans. Seems neither you nor Spielberg can get THAT right. They would terrorize the pet population though and could be quite a menace to sheep if they truly are as intelligent as is currently beleived.

Re:It's all coming true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically Spielberg thought the Deinonychus and Velociraptors would be cool monsters if they were human sized so he used some artistic
license and made 'em bigger.

However a pack of three foot tall velociraptors would have no problem taking a puny human to lunch and the slightly larger Deinonychus would do the same.

Also, the much larger Utahraptor, which was discovered in the early 1990's would have considered humans a light snack.

Re:Auracariacacae

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info. I was already fearing that these trees would have to be counted thusly:

I auracariaca
II auracariacacae
III auracariacacacae
IV auracariacacacacae

and so on...

hemocyanin, not cyanoglobin

[hpulley]

See this page about octopus circulatory systems. The oxygen carrying chemical is called hemocyanin, not cyanoglobin, and does contain copper.

Blue copper-based horseshoe crab blood also contains hemocyanin.

Jurrasic Pot?

[bongholio]

Jurassic pot plants on sale soon

Now you can get your woman so stoned you won't have to club her over the head to get her in your cave!

Location not so 'top secret' anymore !

[forged]

Thanks Slashdot for all the publicity which will flock wannabe-botanists to "Wollemi National Park, only 150 km from Sydney" ...

fortunately the tree is in a "deep, narrow canyon" which I say will buy it maybe another day or two before annihilation !

Something for Canberra

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we can use them to replace the pine forests that were destroyed around Canberra earlier this year.

Let them live with the other fossils running the place

Fight Evolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about throwing evolution a curve ball. Instead of the tree having to evolve to fit their environment, people all over the world are going to care for it in a enviornment tailored to its needs.

i feel misled

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes, the article is very misleading. ...I doubt the plants grew in nice clay pots in the Jurassic. :)

Or

[Channard]

... 'triffid masters'

Nice picture

[tsa]

Nice picture of a tree in a test tube! I always find it amazing that something so small will eventually dwarf you.

Ginko Biloba is 200 millions years old

[cosmosis]

Not sure what they mean by saying this plant is the only survivor of the Jurassic age, as Ginko Biloba is 200 million years old.

Re:Ginko Biloba is 200 millions years old

[rworne]

Lets not forget the many species of ferns. There are tree fern species that date back to the carboniferous era.

Here's some more info.

Re:Ginko Biloba is 200 millions years old

[azav]

Yes, if you go to The San Francisco Golden Gate Park or New Zealand, you will see tree ferns. These are ferns that are as high as some trees.

But I think the fuss is that this creature did not evolve for 150 million + years. It is a window back that many million years. Also, this creature is a tree. That's quite uncommon.

And there are a few other very old and unique trees in that vein in New Zealand. Google for Native New Zealand Trees

Re:Ginko Biloba is 200 millions years old

[rworne]

Yes, I agree that the fact that this is a tree is quite significant compared to the more primitive ferns.

I was just pointing out that there are quite "old" plants that are living fossils aside from this tree.

Jurrasic Park

[techstar25]

I saw that movie and I know how this story ends...Have we learned nothing from Steven Spielberg?

Market-driven species preservation

[rev063]

An interesting idea to preserve an endandgered species: make it into a commercial product! Having just the one grove makes this jurassic pine's survival tenuous at best, but when you can pick them up $10 apiece in IKEA their survival is assured.

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:Market-driven species preservation

[slothman32]

Oddly enough Venus Flytraps are endangered because of commercialism. They are being sold faster than they grow in the wild and at home they don't reproduce.

Yes..

[annisette]

and I will be the only person who has one...wait my neighbor just got back from wal-mart.. that bastard.

No such thing as genetic perfection

[Mars Ultor]

a genetic "dead-end of perfection"

This is really a misleading term. There exists no such thing as genetic perfection, just as evolution on this planet will never lead to the creation of an "uber-species". An organism simply adapts to its particular environment, or fails to and dies out. Thus a shark, which is a supreme predator in the ocean, will not fare too long when placed in the Sahara. The same holds true for just about every other species - perfection is only achieved relative to a particular environment. That grove in Australia simply exerted no new selection pressure on the Wollemi tree. An exception to this rule might be made for H. sapien sapien, but one could argue we're operating outside of natural selection now (a whole new thread in itself).

Spineless Klingons

[powerlord]

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).

Interesting ... but I would think twice before telling a Klingon that he has a lot in common with the physiology of Earth Invertibrates.

He might think you shouldn't have any backbone either :p

Gotta love the caption...

[Ibanez]

If you read the article, or glanced it, you certainly saw the picture of the tree in a pot, in the middle of nowhere, with the caption "As seen in the Jurassic Age".

Apparently someone back then was into pottery...

Blake

Humans do evolve!

[Doug Merritt]

There exists no such thing as genetic perfection ...An organism simply adapts to its particular environment, or fails to and dies out.

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!

[ChrisMaple]

"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, ..."

I think you didn't understand the point. Humans to some extent operate under un natural selection now, in the sense that our selection is consciously directed and technologically modified.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Mars Ultor]

You understand my point exactly. Inventions (read technology) such as medicines (such as antibiotics, etc.), forced-air heating, anti-bacterial soaps, etc. all contribute to an unnatural environment - for instance, no one has to adapt to the extremes of the Canadian north by growing dense hairy coats or else risk perishing - you just turn up the thermostat and stay inside. My point is that we no longer follow text book examples of selection because we have acquired the ability to modify our environments, rather than allowing selection pressures to modify our DNA. (See what I meant by a whole new thread!)

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Doug Merritt]

I think you didn't understand the point. Humans to some extent operate under un natural selection now, in the sense that our selection is consciously directed and technologically modified.

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!

[Mars Ultor]

I'm not trying to suggest anyone is directing evolution - my point is that environmental selection pressures (mostly in the developed world) really don't exhibit much strength anymore. Furthermore, sexual selection in humans does not follow stereotypical examples found in most other mammals - yes woman/men select partners based on criteria - but each person's criteria is infinitely different than anothers (not just the colour of the throat or size of the shoulders).

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"!

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.

because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors

In the developed world (where I contend that natural selection pressures are altered), I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the majority of the population experiences selection from the natural environment (most people don't worry about dying for lack of food or shelter).

Re:Humans do evolve!

[fucksl4shd0t]

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:Humans do evolve!

[Minna Kirai]

Therefore obviously Homo Sapiens still evolves.

Your definition of evolution is based on "heritable characteristics". DNA is not the only possible such characteristic. After all, it's just a way of transmitting information from one generation to the next, and we've developed other means to do this. Cuneiform is a good example. Gutenberg and ISO9660 are others.

The long term development of technological and political ideas are also forms of evolution. (Some call this "memetics") And since ideas can both mutate and propagate faster than genes, it's possible that the dominant form of future human evolution will be non-genetic.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[geekoid]

"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."

But you forget that man invented alcohol, thus letting us operate outside are normal natural selection.

Kidding aside, there is some truth in what the poster said. People born the genetic defects that would have killed them before they were 5 are being 'cured', and those genes will carry into there offspring.

*I put cured in quotes because there not actually cured. ex:
SOmeone is born with a genetic heart defect, but a surgeon fixes the valve(whatever). the genetic issue still exists, but the patient is fixed.

Finally, I'm going to pinch 'they couldn't get laid carrying a bunch of bananas into a monkey whorehouse', because thats just damn funny.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Minna Kirai]

which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.

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 where reproductive pressures will see them overwhelmed and dissipated within 50 years.

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.

Here's another way of looking at the claim that "humans aren't evolving". On the North American continent, visit Montana or somewhere north of there, and look at a glacier. Is it moving? By any concievable practical definition, it is immobile and stationary. Yet it's velocity is the same as when it traveled 200 km down from the mountains a millenia ago.

In the same way, we can say that natural selection in humans (and all other major lifeforms) is stopped, since it's progress is far to slow for us to ever observe a change again.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Rostin]

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. ;-)

The view that the Earth is the center of the universe stemmed not from a "high" view of mankind, but from a low one. It was believed that the corrupt things must be lower the celestial bodies, which were admired. (This is also the source of the idea that Hell is in the center of the Earth).
While it may be said that Christians have a high view of man because they believe that we were made in God's image, Christians are usually criticized for claiming that man is bad enough to need saving. (If it's not one thing, it's another.)
So, though it may amuse you to think of your views as being less conceited than the two you've mentioned, it is a dishonest pleasure.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[eGabriel]

I believe it was Love and Rockets who said:

You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
That's part of nature too.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Ompaloskeptic]

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. Dune, anyone?

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Anonymous Coward]

man being created in the image of God. You wish. ;-)

To the contrary, I know. And of course, you can't prove otherwise, so why put a personal opinion that has nothing to do with real science in your post?

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Reziac]

*Deliberate* selection is not a slow process at all. Frex, new breeds of livestock can be developed, and got to the point of a completely stable gene pool, in only 5 to 10 generations. Most of the modern dog breeds resulted from only a few generations of selection. In fact, what we now know as the Golden Retriever was separated from the Wavy-Coated Retriever gene pool in a matter of one generation of selection; you can follow the process in the stud book records. Same for some breeds of cattle, like Red Angus: one generation of selection and it's separated from Black Angus.

It depends on how much separation you want to achieve and how many traits you're trying to isolate, but as a rule, it only takes 4 or 5 generations to sift out a set of genes that doesn't much resemble the originals. Selecting for recessive genes is a matter of only one or two generations to "purify" the gene pool; dominants take a little longer, but you can have reasonably predictable results in 3 to 5 generations, and pretty damned stable within 10 generations.

For humans, you'd simply have to chart out pedigrees and breed for or against particular traits, the same as we've always done for livestock.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Doug Merritt]

It depends on how much separation you want to achieve and how many traits you're trying to isolate

Absolutely.

Selecting for recessive genes is a matter of only one or two generations to "purify" the gene pool; dominants take a little longer, but you can have reasonably predictable results in 3 to 5 generations

This directly conflicts with what I've read in the technical literature. Do you have a source to cite to support this?

I arbitrarily picked my figure of 50 generations for small change from a recent study that said it took that long to produce a domesticated species from a wild one, which is a matter of confusing existing drives/instincts in directions beneficial to humans -- not a matter of creating brand new drives/instincts.

Offhand I would say that you're confusing the topic of changing the phenotype with that of changing the genotype, which makes a huge difference, because if you keep in-breeding dogs whose phenotype have the characteristic you like, then e.g. various recessives can stay indefinitely hidden in the genotype without being expressed -- but also without disappearing from the gene pool.

It takes much stronger evidence than anecdotal observation of dog breeds to be sure of the extent to which the genotype has changed, whereas the phenotype is easy to observe (in the particular cases that you are talking about...in other cases it can sometimes be even harder to observe than the genotype).

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Reziac]

I'm a dog breeder by profession; in 34 years, I've had 11 generations of my own line. And I've done a lot of test-matings, as well as a certain amount of inbreeding. Inbreeding tends to produce homogenous gene pools (ie. predictable results), whereas outcrosses introduce randomness. Also, I do pedigree analysis for other breeds and occasionally other species.

Inbreeding does the opposite of what you postulate -- the more inbreeding you do, the MORE it exposes various recessives you didn't know you had. Once you know about them, you can either select for or against these genes.

It's not difficult to breed out a recessive, by doing appropriate test-matings and examining a reasonable number of offspring. An unknown bred to a homozygous-recessive only requires 6 offspring to be 96% [IIRC the number] certain of the unknown's status (that is, if you got NO affected offspring, there is a 96% chance that the "unknown" is NOT a carrier). Also, with some recessives, there are known genetic markers, so a DNA scan can ID them for you.

Recessives thus can and have been eliminated from breeding populations -- frex, thanks to routine test-mating of all bulls, the red gene is no longer in most Black Angus populations; various physiological defects (blindness, HD, etc.) and unwanted coat types have been bred out of or at least drastically reduced in some lines of dogs; etc.

You do have to make sure you are breeding for a homozygous gene pool, tho. Frex, the Havana Brown breed of cat will NEVER be genetically stable, because the desired breed traits are heterozygous (the result of a blue-eyed sealpoint Siamese crossed with a yellow-eyed black alley cat, which results in a solid brown cat with green eyes; while some lines have eliminated the Siamese markings, clear [not muddy] green eyes is always the result of blue+yellow, not a gene for green per se, so clear green eyes don't breed true).

Also, you need to have an eye for type and detail. I can line up a litter of black Labrador pups and reliably pick out those that carry yellow and/or chocolate, because there are differences in the coat texture and colour depth. Most people simply don't have that good of an eye, so they spend $80 to get colour gene typing done instead. :) And I can pick out pups that have the incomplete dominant for retinal dysplasia -- even if the eyes are normal, they are built different (and will produce occasional pups with defective eyes). I taught my vet ophthalmologist what to look for, and after seeing a few examples, he could peg them too. As happens, my data on that is now the primary RD research data (and I've completely bred it out of my dogs. :)

Anyway, this is something I've had a lot of hands-on experience with, and have watched some breeds evolve (thru selection pressure) to something unrecogniseably new within my own lifetime. Humans are not that different from any other animal. The real difference is that from fear of eugenics or whatever other nonsense, we don't keep detailed pedigrees (with known carriers of whatever marked) for most human families.

pot plants

[gnunick]

...This look like an interesting addition to any home, even if the article's title is a bit of a misnomer.

It's not a misnomer, it's just a little culture shock for our humble editors :) But when I saw the headline on the BBC front page the other day, I'll admit I also "fell for it" at first. But seriously, since these "Jurassic Pines" are being marketed as house plants, rather than something to put in your yard, they'll be spending their lives in big pots--hence, "pot plants".

I'm sure the British have been calling plants in pots "pot plants" long before the slang usage of "pot" as a word for dope came into common use.

A few years ago, while walking in London, I saw a sidewalk sandwich-board advertising "Sale! Pot plants L2.50" and you can bet I wish I'd had my camera with me so I could have titillated my Yankee friends back home.

Anyway, I'm sure the Brits in our audience see such things every day and make nothing of it. Do you guys over there even call marijuana "pot"? The BBC normally refers to it as "cannabis".

-gnunick

They use different words for things in America. For instance they say elevator and we say lift. They say drapes and we say curtains. They say president and we say brain damaged git. -- Alexei Sayle

Jurrassic POT Plants on sale soon.

[R_V_Winkle]

Can someone please post the link to the BBC mail-order section.

Dinosaurs aren't extinct....

[fwc]

They're just hiding in a grove of trees in australia .. and behind Dilbert's sofa.

Scrooge McDuck knows all!!!

[macshune]

"Work smarter, not harder!"

Re:Scrooge McDuck knows all!!!

[fucksl4shd0t]

"Work smarter, not harder!"

Goddammit, I spent a long time writing that post. And then you come along and rewrite the whole fuckin' thin in four words.

Good job!

Jurassic pot plants on sale soon

[incom]

In case someone didn't rtfa and was wondering what was funny about the article headline:

Jurassic can be used to mean "really big" and pot plants might mean "cannabis plants", and since they are illegal, certainly putting giant ones for sale would be a strange thing.

Cool. I'll have to get me a few of these

[kfg]

So my ants and roaches can feel at home in their native enviroment.

KFG

Run! Run! Run for your lives!! Arrgaccckkk!....

[bl8n8r]

..What Binkley didn't know was that the tiny sapling he watered was a breed of prehistoric tree known to ancient man as "Ugh Plbtt", or roughly translated, "killer pine". Ancient man went through great pains to rid the world of Ugh Plbtt to make sure it would never rear its 800 meter-high ugly head again, and threaten civilization in it's entirety... Little did foolish Binkley know.. muhahahahaha...

Jurassic pot plants on sale soon

[hesiod]

Misnomer? The page title is "Jurassic pot plants on sale soon." It's a lie! These aren`t pot at all, it`s pine! Tastes good, but not quite the same after-effect.

Jeeez!

[dryguy]

Haven't these loons ever heard of Kudzu?

Last comment

[Mars Ultor]

I'll give you one concrete example to illustrate my point. Perhaps you've heard of a condition called phenylketonuria, where a buildup of the amino acid phenylalanine in the developing brain of an infant, caused by a single point mutation in a gene, results in a cytotoxic effect that ends in death. 100 years ago, this condition was a)undefined and b)lethal. Flashforward to now: children born with PKU are not only identifiable, but are saved by eliminating phenylalanine from their diet. So what you say. Well, if a woman born with PKU wants to have a baby, that child will contract a new condition, totally unknown and nonexistent 100 years ago called maternal PKU, where the mother has excess phenylalanine in her blood, which enters the developing fetus brain and results in abnormal development. Mother cuts phenylalanine out of her diet during pregnancy, child born healthy and can then eat as much phenylalanine as it wants.

The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences by using our knowledge to alter our environment (no phenylalanine in foods) rather than our genes. In this case, it has resulted in the existence of a new condition that wouldn't exist without human involvement. Of course human beings evolve. My original (now contorted) point is that we do not do so in the course of textbook selection pressures that can be learned in any first year biology course. The "laws of nature" (classically accepted ones, not some garbage catch-all phrasing that says "nature is everything-everything is nature") have been altered by mankind. Nuff said.

Re:Last comment

[fucksl4shd0t]

The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences

Actually, the whole point you're missing is that because of our intelligence, we have pushed the evolutionary boundaries farther than they have been pushed before, at least, on our planet, and as far as we know. :) We have't sidestepped evolution, we have participated. We keep on participating. You look at a few given situations and think "Oh gee, we're smart enough to defy evolution". I look at the same situations and think "Hmm, we got over that obstacle. What's the next one?" Have you noticed that as people live longer, more diseases are being found? Take cancer, any kind of cancer. It used to be a very very rare disease, and was always fatal. Now that we've pushed human age to 100 (and counting) we've uncovered all kinds of cancers, and it's getting more and more common. Cancer is a disease that doesn't normally strike before your 30s. What's the average age of a cancer patient? Probably higher than the previous maximum age. Now we have to beat cancer. After we beat cancer, what's next? When we finally make it into space, what's next? Obviously, the people who are smart will survive in space, and the people who are not will not. (That's very simplistic, I realize)

You can't circumvent evolution, and you never stop evolving until you go to church.

Re:Last comment

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you never stop evolving until you go to church

I was actually enjoying most of what you said until this garbage... [sighs]

(No, I'm not a Christian!)

First image caption...

[nomel]

Looking at the first image caption...it's amazing that these plants grow a sort of exoskeleton that, from what I can see, exactly resembles a planter pot. Maybe these plants can be cross bread with other common domentic plants to give this feature.

Because

[narftrek]

It was the only plant left after all the other plants voted each other off the planet.

"Jurassic pot plants on sale soon"

[WoTG]

Funny, around my part of the world, no serious news organization would have picked this as the title of the article. Exactly what do they call pot in Britain?

Danger, Will Robinson!

[Tablizer]

I am not gonna put one of those plants in my house. What if that asteroid comes back to finish the job it didn't fully complete the first time?

Take mice for example

[Mars Ultor]

Acutally, depending on the animal, stable genotypic alterations can be done in as little as one generation. I'm a grad student working with transgenic and wildtype mice studying a form of muscle cancer called alveolar rhabdomycosarcoma. Through the use of Southern blotting for genotyping, I've successfully altered or eliminated alleles, using traditional breeding in a single cross. At most, it can be done in 1-3 generations (mice generations are obviously much shorter in duration than dogs). The only exceptions are for more complex traits that rely on multiple genes - but even this is not really an issue, especially when you start using transgenics.

Re:Take mice for example

[Doug Merritt]

The only exceptions are for more complex traits that rely on multiple genes - but even this is not really an issue, especially when you start using transgenics.

Nay nay, it is an issue. Remember that the discussion was about eugenics (sort of). Whether the human race undergoes evolution. Multiple coding sites are precisely the issue, and they cannot all be eliminated quickly, and they can remain unexpressed for many, many, many generations, and all it takes is e.g. one upstream promoter appearing, or a similar but even more complex cause of gene expression in the nuclear machinery (of which we are still largely ignorant, don't forget), and boom, the phenotype trait reappears.

Dog breeders, like the above post, have lots of interesting evidence that applies when a single, easily isolatable external trait is linked to a single DNA sequence in a single site that doesn't involve any odd transcription machinery.

That's why dog and flower breeding works, naturally. But I'm sure you know that that is far from the whole of the story.

And in the context of this discussion, the Nazis, for example, certainly managed to kill a lot of Jews and other people they thought were undesirable, but I haven't seen any evidence that they changed the gene pool of the human race in any clear direction. To the extent that one might say that there is such a thing as a genetic Jewish race (obviously many would say there is not, but let's say), it is clearly not a single-locus gene.

QED.

As for direct genetic manipulation, I explicitly said we weren't talking about that; it's a different topic.

Re:Take mice for example

[Mars Ultor]

I'll agree with you when you talk about the futility of the Nazi experiments. Its very much akin to the old practice of sterilizing people with mental retardation - as if it was a trait that could be bred out. Eugenics could work (shudder), but it would need countless (my best educated guess would be at least 25) generations of strictly controlled breeding to accomplish. This isn't as impossible as you might believe however - virtually all inbred lab mice strains have a very high degree of homozygosity - and many strains were derived within a few generations of inbreeding (again, shudder).

One thing to consider though - the Nazi program had no way in hell of working - you're right - there is no such thing as a genetic Jew, or a genetic black person (in that they represent a different species) since any person, with enough generations, could respawn any of these genotypes.

Pines in Sydney

[sbszine]

Yup, I second that. They look even more primitive than most Aussie plants.

If you're in Sydney want to see some in the flesh (bark?), there's one at the Botanic Gardens (in a cage outside the cactus house), and two at Taronga Zoo in the new outdoor Platypus habitat.