Extinct Wildflower Found In California

Del writes "A Berkeley graduate student found the pink wildflower Eriogonom truncatum, known as the Mount Diablo buckwheat. The flower hasn't been seen for 70 years and has been rediscovered on the flanks of Mount Diablo in Contra Costa County."

Comments

GNAA exposes the dangers of hiring Latvians

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA exposes the dangers of hiring Latvians
Impi - Associated Press, South Africa

GNAA's wish at expressing its displeasure at the re-election of the American lap dog Tony Blair embarked on a plan to demonstrate its frustration to the world.

It was decided to strike at the heart of the American kennel in New York City, the UK consulate. After careful consideration and deliberation by our great executive leaders it was decide that Areems was expendable.

Timecop, blessings be upon him, approached our Latvian charter and recruited Areems for this glorious endeavour. Areems has a history of failure and extreme uselessness; this was his chance to show the GNAA and the world that he was capable of great things.

Unfortunately he could only find a fake hand grenade which was discarded in his bedroom after a webcam orgy session with fellow nigger bedpan.

It is with immense humility that we apologies to all our brothers across the world for the destruction of a flower pot. Areems will be summarily executed and Latvia flushed.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

• First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
• Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
• Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloff

The headline is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really extinct. It can be found in California.

Re:The headline is wrong

[Kinky Bass Junk]

"The Flower Previously Known as 'Extinct'"
Would be a much radder headline.

Re:The headline is wrong

[eclectro]

It's not really extinct. It can be found in California.

No, submitter is right. By time you read the headline everybody will have been out to get one for themselves. It is indeed extinct now.

It was doomed anyway by global warming and whatnot.

Re:The headline is wrong

[jimi the hippie]

Dateline California: Experts crap their pants when they discover the Mt Diablo Buckwheat growing on the side of Mt Diablo. To quote one horticologist, "We thought it was extinct, afterall in the previous 70 years we have not discovered a single one. Then all of a sudden our intern Steve suggested looking around its namesake mountain. Low and behold it was there after all, you should have seen the look on my face when I had to pay Steve that 20 bucks I bet him."

Re:The headline is wrong

[Mr Hurty]

Jeez thanks for the heads up AC....mighta missed that one loser

Re:The headline is wrong

[TRS80NT]

Good point, jimi. What are the odds of finding Mt. Diablo buckwheat ON Mt. Diablo? It's like what were the odds of Lou Gehrig getting Lou Gehrig's Disease.

Re:The headline is wrong

[smittyoneeach]

But you need some butchen, vaguely Egytptian icon to go with it, dude.
And some of that other herb, too.

Re:The headline is wrong

[dapyx]

That would be real-life slashdotting

Re:The headline is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

From parent's sig: I'm an artist and I hate IP laws.

My guess then is that you aren't a very successful artist.

Re:The headline is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you classify as successful. If what you really meant is being rich, then no, he probably isn't. But if his work has "spoken" to those who have partaken of it, then I would say yes, yes he is.

Money isn't everything to everyone, you know. Some people judge their success in other ways.

Re:The headline is wrong

[Transcendent]

Extinct Wildflower Found

Oxymorons rejoice!

Re:The headline is wrong

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Does that mean that we slashdoted the flower? ;-)

Re:The headline is wrong

[b0r0din]

Would be a much radder headline.

I thought the word "radder" was also extinct, having also been last heard in California. Two big discoveries!

Re:The headline is wrong

[nihilistcanada]

So it really was pining for the fjords?

Re:The headline is wrong

[Gryphn]

s/b Ex-Extinct then.

Re:The headline is wrong

[shawb]

Maybe now it's just tinct?

Re:The headline is wrong

[Dolda2000]

Low and behold it was there after all

Was it on the lower parts on the mountain, or do you just mean that we should get low to see it -- after all, it was near the grou... oh wait! I see, you meant "lo and behold"!

;-)

Re:The headline is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of stupid people with near death experiences... "I was dead for 2 minutes." No, if you were dead you wouldn't be here now.

He found a *flower*

[FirienFirien]

News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

Re:He found a *flower*

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

He's a Berkeley grad student. It's quite obvious what he's going to do with the flower: get Amit Singh to install BSD (naturally) on it.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Cygnus78]

Well, he _looks_ like a nerd.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Reene]

So what, botany nerds/geeks don't count?

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I took people out to see it, they just walked right by it," Park said. "They couldn't grok that the thing could be so small and dainty."

News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

oh jeez..

for a second i was hoping to read "cut it open.. let the nice extract seep out.. and smoke it/brew it in some tea to enjoy a nice trip.."

it still shocks me to this day that the nerds have overwhelmed the druggies at UCB..

say, does RMS still smoke opium?

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

I think you meant, "So what, botany nerds/geeks don't count, you insensive clod?"

Re:He found a *flower*

[Reene]

I think it's a given that the "insensitive clod" part is implied. ;)

Re:He found a *flower*

[houghi]

I think it's a given that the "insensitive clod" part is implied.

Should that not be: I think it's a given that the "insensitive clod" part is implied, you insensitive clod. Oh, wait.

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

Hey, I'm raising my kids to be geeks. Oh, they like computers, that goes without saying. But I'm teaching them to like biology too. Instead of teaching them to react with fear and revulsion when they see I spider, I have them look closely and count the number of pairs of eyes they can find. Once we found a daring jumping spider (Phidippus audax) in our garden. This spider is really cool. It's very active because it chases it's prey, leaping on it and killing it with it's chelicerae (fangs), which are a shiny metallic green. One of my entomologist geek friends (who likes other arthopods too), tells me they make good pets.

Nature is cool, and I don't want them to miss out. But I also have an ulterior motive. Informatics was a great field to work in in the late 20th century. It still is. But the most exciting field in this century is going to be biology and its applications.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell us more facts about the future. Perhaps they can be used to ensure that our kids don't have to work at all...

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

Berkeley-grads are not what they used to be.

Today, it's all about "GET $$$ QUICK"; see FuckedGoogle for reference.

It's all fagots like Larry Page: no drugs, no moral, no penis

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

Please tell us more facts about the future.

Sure, no problem. Here's a couple:

You still aren't going to be able to buy a flying car. You will, however, be able to invest in a company which intends to build one.

Some time between 2015 to 2025, expect the cadre of kids now in pre-school to adopt a musical style that current fans of rap will find incomprehensible and offsensive.

Perhaps they can be used to ensure that our kids don't have to work at all...

Well, by the standards of my grandparents and even my parents, what I do hardly counts as work, because it doesn't involve the daily risk of death and dismemberment and is not brutally punishing on my body. I expect that by my grandchildren's time, work will look like hanging around in coffee shop and chatting.

Re:He found a *flower*

['nother poster]

Hey, only two thing ever came out of U.C. Berkeley. LSD and BSD. Do I have to draw you a picture?!?!

Re:He found a *flower*

[NeoSkandranon]

Off topic but:

Jumping spiders do in fact make great pets. Their eyesight is sharp enough they seem to be watching you when you move around, and jumping spiders are quite ferocious for their size, making feeding a matter of getting small crickets (or houseflies depending on the size of the spider)

Depending on what part of the nation you live in you could possibly also find wolf spiders (Lycosa spp., I think) which get a bit larger if your kids want something more visible. Or you could get them a tarantula...

</spider enthusiast>

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

Y'know, I've been keeping my eye out for one with the idea of making it a pet.

The thing is, I don't want to buy cases of crickets. Will they take some kind of human food or animal feed, like shimp pellets? Or can I just catch a bug or two a week and drop it in the tank? Will they take dead food, so I can store some for the winter?

Re:He found a *flower*

[Shotgun]

You still aren't going to be able to buy a flying car. You will, however, be able to invest in a company which intends to build one.

Don't be so sure about that. The most recent EAA newsletter had a blurb that the boys over at Monster Garage will be having a go at it.

I expect that by my grandchildren's time, work will look like hanging around in coffee shop and chatting.

As opposed to standing around a water cooler chatting? The jobs with risk of death and dismemberment are still around. And they're still brutally punishing to the body. But they're either done in China or by illegal Mexicans, so nobody here seems to care much.

Re:He found a *flower*

[bubblewrapgrl]

Many pet stores sell crickets. I buy about a dozen per week for my gecko so that I don't have to deal with an entire case of crickets.

Re:He found a *flower*

[bubblewrapgrl]

But the most exciting field in this century is going to be biology and its applications.

I would say that one of the most exciting fields in this century is actually going to be Bioinformatics (disclaimer: I'm currently getting a degree in bioinformatics). It's not enough any more for someone to have a degree in Biology. It's much more useful if you have a degree in Biology and some programming skills. Most fields in Biology have so much information to go through (like DNA or protein sequences) that it's becoming almost a necessity to have the ability to write programs to do what you want.

Re:He found a *flower*

[NeoSkandranon]

They don't need feeding often. Twice a week should do fine, and remove whatever's left (Some spiders will leave a bolus of exoskeleton in their enclosure after feeding)

Dead food...possibly. My smallest tarantula (which is about the size of a young jumping spider) will take crickets that have had their head crushed, as well as dismembered cricket legs (the big jumping ones)

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that by my grandchildren's time, work will look like hanging around in coffee shop and chatting.

Those jobs already exist. They're called "government jobs".

The sad thing is that most slashdotters are willing to pay higher taxes so that more "jobs" like that can be created. Remember, government employees don't have to produce anything.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Spirckle]

No, first post is correct. Flying cars have been techincally possible for years and years. But the real reason you won't be able to buy a flying car is that the US government can't have us flying all over the place willy nilly going over borders, flying over the whitehouse, the pentagon, or area 56. It is way too uncontrolled for the people who like to control things.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Maul]

Not to mention the fact that people can barely drive the cars that don't fly.

Re:He found a *flower*

[random coward]

Some time between 2015 to 2025, expect the cadre of kids now in pre-school to adopt a musical style that current fans of rap will find incomprehensible and offsensive.

That is one of the funniest things i've read on slashdot in a while. I guess this means that Country and Western Music makes a comeback, huh?

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of teaching them to react with fear and revulsion when they see I spider, I have them look closely and count the number of pairs of eyes they can find... and then squash it.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't teach your kids how to write. Your usage of "it's" and "its" is inconsistent. I let you look more closely and figure out which is correct in which context.

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

I hope you don't teach your kids how to write.

No, I let they're teechrs due that. I due however try to teech them not to be obnokshus prigs.

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

Funny that you should mention that. I'm currently being drawn into that field by my job. The problem is that funding for practical applications of bioinformatics are limited to what in my opinion are overly narrow fields. What this amounts to is that well-heeled orgnizations can afford to buy/build/extend LIMS systems to have all kinds of interesting capabilities. We're talking people doing gene sequencing and the like.

What the world really needs is more technology to support the kind of research this guy does. Field research, environmental monitoring, and public health surveillance. It's nice that biotech companies can sequence genes faster, but this whole range of field bioinformatics applications potentially has widepread economic and human welfare impacts. The genes will be there to be sequenced tommorow, but averting an epidemic outbreak, or saving a species from extinction... these are one time opportunities.

Guess which kind of applications I work in?

Re:He found a *flower*

[hey!]

I actually talked my 6 year old son into tasting a carpenter ant.

We were both curious what it would taste like, but I didn't have the guts to do it myself. God I'm glad my wife doesn't read slashdot.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Reziac]

Ants come in several flavours, which vary by species and probably by what they're eating too.

The best ones are mildly sweet with a hint of acidity. These are good raw or fried. Ordinary "big brown ants" (common throughout the American midwest) are of this type. The main problem is that by the time you've collected enough ants for a meal, you've starved to death.

The worst ... well, there are ants that smell like rotting socks, and I imagine they taste much the same. You'll have to check those out for yourself. :)

Re:He found a *flower*

[Uber Banker]

I once ate an ant, I was bout 10 years old, that was a greyish colour, 3mm long. Very bitter, one of the most bitter things I had ever eaten, especially in such a small quantity.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Reziac]

I've never seen a grey ant. Are you sure it wasn't a termite?

The more-acidic ants (without any sweetness) aren't any good unless fried, which takes the sting out of 'em.

The ants in SoCal are all kindof icky tasting, which is a shame because finally I'm somewhere there are enough ants to make a meal :)

Re:He found a *flower*

[Alakaboo]

Some time between 2015 to 2025, expect the cadre of kids now in pre-school to adopt a musical style that current fans of rap will find incomprehensible and offsensive.

...and everyone else will still be listening to Mozart and Led Zeppelin. ;-)

Re:He found a *flower*

[lxw56]

Perhaps they can be used to ensure that our kids don't have to work at all...

Well, by the standards of my grandparents and even my parents, what I do hardly counts as work, because it doesn't involve the daily risk of death and dismemberment and is not brutally punishing on my body.

It may be easier in a number of days, but we will always have ambitious, competitive, or bored workaholics.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Timothy Chu]

Agreed...but jumping spiders are probably a bit too agile and quick to be kept in a container even such as an aquarium. Perhaps if you were keeping them only for a few days for observation, then maybe, but for longer than that, I'd suggest any of the funnel weaving species (or the wolf spiders you mention) that you'd find in your basement first. They're already aclimatized to your indoor temperature, and they're used to living long periods without food.

Orb weavers (the spiral web weavers) are best kept outdoors, but they tend to have fairly permanent homes that you can feed and observe every day in the same spot.

Re:He found a *flower*

[Uber Banker]

100% sure it was an ant. I remember thinking "that's an ant, but its grey, so what does it taste like?"

Perhaps it had dust on it, or perhaps it was an old ant; I was in Greece at the time, so maybe it got sunburnt?

Re:He found a *flower*

[emurphy42]

Already has. One of my work clients sells earplugs - I should ask them for a couple. :)

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that by my grandchildren's time, work will look like hanging around in coffee shop and chatting.

*sigh* Why couldn't I have been born in the future?

Re:He found a *flower*

[Reziac]

Or maybe Greece just has really weird ants!

In other odd things to eat, roasted grasshopper legs taste a lot like frog. :)

Re:He found a *flower*

[Anonymous Coward]

You were. Just ask your grandparents*.

* If alive. Otherwise, ask oldest living relative.

This just in

[el_womble]

In a rare interview Eriogonom truncatum states "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Re:This just in

[Ziviyr]

monty python voice:
"hes getting better"

Re:This just in

[CortoMaltese]

This reminds me of a Far Side cartoon with dinosaurs having a barbeque, and one of them wearing an "Extinct and loving it" t-shirt.

Re:This just in

[atomm1024]

Holy shit... just a few minutes ago (before I saw this /. article) I suddenly thought of that Mark Twain quote. Seriously. And it was basically unexplained; it's not like I think about Mark Twain's witticisms on a regular basis. And now I see this. Yow!

(It's happened before. I'm always having precognitions of Simpsons episodes, for example. I guess I'm psychic about really unimportant things.)

Re:This just in

[qray]

Dang you guys took all my lines. Haven't seen this one yet: He's only mostly extinct.

Re:This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

This flower is not dead, it's just resting...

Re:This just in

[Eccles]

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Eriogonom, when death is on the line!'"

Re:This just in

[Carewolf]

"I am getting better."!!

I hereby revoke your geek license.

Re:This just in

[droptone]

The Real Reason Dinosaurs Became Extinct!

Re:This just in

[dgatwood]

That's not the right sketch for this situation. It should have bee the MP Holy Grail sketch after the guy got shot with the arrow.

Scientist: Your extinction will not go in vain.
Flower: Uh... I'm... I'm not quite dead, sir....
Scientist: Well, then, you shall not have become endangered in vain.
Flower: Uh... I... I think... uh... I could pull through, sir.
Scientist: Oh, I see....
Flower: Actually, I think I'm all right to come with you....
Scientist: No, no, sweet flower. Stay here on Mount Diablo. They'll all think you're extinct because they would never think to look here.... Farewell, sweet flower.
Flower: I'll... uh... I'll just stay here then, shall I, sir? Yeah.

:-D

Re:This just in

[captain_dope_pants]

Actually the extinction of the dinosaurs was due to this:

Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny yet measurable distance from the earth every year.
If you do the maths, you can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth at a distance of about 35 feet from the earth's surface.
This would explain the death of the dinosaurs.
At least the tallest ones. :-)

Re:This just in

[vsprintf]

If you do the maths, you can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth at a distance of about 35 feet from the earth's surface.
This would explain the death of the dinosaurs.
At least the tallest ones. :-)

Woah! So all those craters are from dinosaur impacts? I feel an oil-exploration moon mission coming on. Where's Sigourney Weaver these days?

"Extinct"

[gowen]

You keep using that word, and I don't think it means what you think it does. This flower is self-evidently not extinct.

Clue : the phrase you're looking for is "Wildflower previously thought extinct".

Re:"Extinct"

[Mr Hurty]

ooh lets see what i can get modded up for this insightful wank fest. of course it's nt extinct...it's nailed to the perch t ono tlook likes it's extinct que monty python mod points for me :)

Re:"Extinct"

[Tenebrious1]

You keep using that word, and I don't think it means what you think it does.

Inconceivable! Are we talking about a buttercup or a buckwheat flower?

Why is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I took people out to see it, they just walked right by it," Park said. "They couldn't grok that the thing could be so small and dainty."

Oh.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's news for herbs.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[hey!]

That's news for herbs, stuff that manures.

Oh, wait.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[mattspammail]

Another note, it didn't look small and dainty, or at least I didn't grok it so. It was HUGE, and that gargantuan "fly" sitting on it (previously thought to be extinct) will be the next big story. Shoot, that fly was like 1 1/2 inches across my screen. That's a big a$$ fly!

Next /. headline: GIANT PREVIOUSLY-EXTINCT FLIES FEED ON DAINTY, PREVIOUSLY-EXTINCT FLOWERS, THEN FEAST AT LOCAL PICNICS, STARVING LOCALS

First comment on that story: "Dupe"

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[tquinlan]

Also:

"At some point, if we have the mature seeds and can get them started in cultivation so there is a backup, then we can relax a little more," Ertter said. "At this point, it is really tenuous. Here, it's still hanging on by its fingernails, and the publicity alone could be enough to wipe it out again."

Now we're "backing up" plants...

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[Rinikusu]

Nerds come in all flavors with diverse interests. Understand that just about any interest in anything that resides in the umbrella of science is looked up on with disdain by "mainstream" America. Scientists, in any field, are generally regarded as "nerds" by your typical MBA.

I have a great interest in botony, ichthyology (killifish, pupfish, goodeids), and ecology in addition to the standard "geek" computer/technology interests.

While a lot of guys look at stuff like the Zaurus as something they can show off to their peers (?) as running linux, or do something asinine like ssh to their server to show people their uptimes (and I suppose some people do work on them), I see it as a potential field data collection computer. If I desired, I could write custom software and drivers for to aid in data collection, etc.

So, in essence, I'd rather see articles on "extinct" wildflowers than blatant advertisements. It's a nice addition, mkay?

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[operagost]

"Uh, where is that buckwheat again?"

"It's right over there, you ninny."

"I still don't see it ..."

"Careful, you moron! No!"

*crunch*

Slashdot headline: "Extinct Wildflower Found in California is Extinct Again."

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[B2382F29]

Now we're "backing up" plants...

Yeah, with a large truck tire ...

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[sentientbeing]

Yeah. And if we started cloning them, it'd be called 'mirroring'.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[BewireNomali]

See, What you said about field data collection units and using tech in disparate fields is great shit. I'll try and take it a step further.

We should have a species gene database. We should catalog every species, google style, by taking at least one sample of genetic material from each gender of each species, a digital noah's ark as it were.

We should post our genome too. Once a year or so, we cut and paste the whole database to some removable storage medium with a brief description of what it is. Then we shoot the copy into deep space. This way, we can assure the possibility of future generations given even the complete annihilation of current ones.

It's a noble pursuit, I think, and one that can be readily done. It might already be done, and I might benefit from a healthy session of google querying. All of which is to say, I see no need to get up in arms about the extinction of a species today when we have the technology to bring extinct species back.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have a species gene database. We should catalog every species http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/ Of course, it will be quite a long time before we will be able to reconstruct an complex organism from sequence information alone.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[vsprintf]

And we also find out that plants have "fingernails". I'm gonna be far more careful while weeding from now on.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[vsprintf]

Scientists, in any field, are generally regarded as "nerds" by your typical MBA.

Sorry, your typical MBA never got that far into categorization. Anyone not in management is regarded as "disposable".

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in essence, I'd rather see articles on "extinct" wildflowers than blatant advertisements. It's a nice addition, mkay?

I think you missed the point of the post.
It was clearly a reference to the use of the word grok.. since grok is not something you see oft quoted in the media (even UCB news)...And if anything it simply points out that the geeks studying this stuff are not much different than "computer geeks"... you're just preaching to the choir, m'kay?

It can't be extinct if its been found!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between "extinct" and "very rare".

Re:It can't be extinct if its been found!

[koi88]

There is a difference between "extinct" and "very rare".

But what an exciting headline that would make: "Very rare herb found in California."
Wow.

Re:It can't be extinct if its been found!

[ggvaidya]

+1, Insightful.

Guess its not

[apathyonline]

Guess its not extinct now, is it. :)

Extinct?

[GraemeDonaldson]

How can it be extinct if they found it growing there?

It's not extinct

[3.5 stripes]

e's just been hiding.

I'm guessing it was reaaaally small flower.

Although seeds can be viable for a really long time, maybe that is the case here?

Re:It's not extinct

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Somebody that didn't RTFA, but basically guessed the gist of it (besides the excitement(well, exciting to a botanist)of finding a presumed extinct flower.)

So, yeah. It is small. It looks about like baby's breath. You know, those tiny white flowers that sometimes come in a bouquet. Except shorter.

And many botanists presumed that the unordinarilly late rains this season prompted the growth, or at least flowering, of the buckwheat. (Obviously can't find it if it is resting in seed, but possibly just hard to identify if it's not flowering. Of course, if it isn't flowering, that means that it isn't making seeds, so it must be growing from the existing seedband in the soil, so again, the seeds are the backup. Life is cool.)

Grok!

[MobileC]

Well this gets my vote for the best use of the word "grok" by a non computer nerd.

Re:Grok!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please eat shit and die.

Re:Grok!

[poor_boi]

nothing really computer-centric about 'grok'. maybe nerd centric. there are definitely botany nerds.

Re:Grok!

[kfg]

Like, dude, grok was groked first by hippies, and I've got the sandles and beads to prove it. Keep on truckin'!

KFG

Re:Grok!

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Robert Heinlein the source of the term? I know he used it in at least one of his books.
(It meant to know thoroughly)

Re:Grok!

[Anonymous Coward]

It meant "to drink."

Re:Grok!

[DragonMageWTF]

Actually it first started out in Stranger in a Strange Land by . So I would wager the Heinlein was the first to grok grok.

Re:Grok!

[kfg]

Yes, am familiar with the book, Mr. Valentine Michael Smith, the bet with L. Ron Hubbard and the whole schmegegy.

KFG

Is there anything we can do?

[Council]

Oh my God.

Following a different routine from his normal survey, he stumbled across the plants - about 20 in all - in full bloom

We must hope that these 20 are the only ones. I hope that they'll move quickly enough to wipe out this terrible scourge once and for all.

"When I took people out to see it, they just walked right by it," Park said. "They couldn't grok that the thing could be so small and dainty."

We never see these horrors coming because deep down, we're just too good to imagine these things growing in our own backyards. We've been blind for too long.

"It was very exciting, and I've spent a few weeks being stunned over this thing," he said. "But I'll be glad when it's over."

We all will, Michael, we all will. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

"At this point, it is really tenuous. Here, it's still hanging on by its fingernails, and the publicity alone could be enough to wipe it out again."

We can only pray.

Re:Is there anything we can do?

[roman_mir]

"It was very exciting, and I've spent a few weeks being stunned over this thing," he said. "But I'll be glad when it's over." - translation: we tried smoking this stuff, apparently it has the same effect as very good hashish. It has taken over my soul and I can't stop smoking it. I'll be glad when it's over and I don't have to worry about my lack of will-power.

We've been blind for too long - translation: we've been buying this low quality crap from the dudes on the corner for too long to notice this shit growing around us.

"At this point, it is really tenuous. Here, it's still hanging on by its fingernails, and the publicity alone could be enough to wipe it out again." - translation: this shit is not going to last us very long... I'll smoke anyone who tries anything funny.

Re:Is there anything we can do?

[RobertB-DC]

"At this point, it is really tenuous. Here, it's still hanging on by its fingernails, and the publicity alone could be enough to wipe it out again."
We can only pray.

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Is there anything we can do?

[k512-arch]

haha. you're awesome.

Oh the irony

[Adrilla]

Then the ivory-billed woodpecker thought to also be extinct ate it.

Re:Oh the irony

[Gaewyn L Knight]

and died because it is poisonous to ivory-billed woodpeckers. :}

Re:Oh the irony

[Adrilla]

naturally!

New Headline: Wildflowers invent time travel!!

[OneDeeTenTee]

Yeah, I know it was probably hibernation, I did RTFA of course.

Hmm.. let's see..

[Anonymous Coward]

To confirm you're not a script,
please type the text shown in this image:

Text: apgfdzp

yep.. looks like CmdrTaco and Slashmins FAIL IT again.. can't fuck wit GNAA

SlashBomb 1.1.0 Generated Post
Get yours at http://slashbomb.gx.vu/

Great!

[evenprime]

Let's feed the flower to the newly re-discovered ivory billed woodpecker! :)

keep it up

[poor_boi]

1 down, 831 to go.

Monty Python and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat

[dbolger]

Its not quite extinct...

Re:Monty Python and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat

[kfg]

Maybe it was just pinin' for the fjords.

KFG

Re:Monty Python and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat

[wootest]

No, it was pushing up the daisies.

Quick!

[bigmouth_strikes]

Someone make this a geocache spot so we can stampede it into extinction once and for all!

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

We've made species go extinct before, we can do it again!

Re:New Headline: Wildflowers invent time travel!!

[dbolger]

You fool, John Titor brought them back on the soles of his shoes.

Wait, how far back did he go again?

Well then it's not extinct

[syousef]

Gotta love the wording!

Wildflower extinct?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so...Otis Wildflower is a frequent poster on Slashdot and is very much alive.

hmm

[davidmcg]

It is now extinct again when scientists picked it and realised they couldn't keep it alive by putting into a glass of water.

Re:hmm

[capt.Hij]

You joke, but... I once worked at one of our governments lab and shared an office with a biologist who liked to take lunch walks on the grounds. He occasionally came back with plants that he picked wondering what they were. One day he came back with a plant that he had never seen. When he looked it up he found that it was on the state's endangered species list! He was quite distressed, but was glad to find that it wasn't on the federal list. Fortunately, the state list didn't mean much, and it was quite common in the neighboring state where it was considered a weed.

Needless to say, he was much more careful from then on.

Re:hmm

[monkeydo]

It would seem that the scientists may have had something to do with it's extinction.

First reported in 1862, there are only seven historical records of the plant, the last in 1936, when Bowerman, one of the first women to receive a Ph.D. in botany from UC Berkeley, collected a sample from Mount Diablo.

So the last reported sighting of this plant was 70 years ago when a botanist picked some. And then apparantly didn't extract any seeds, or plant it in a garden. Hoorray for preservation!

Re:hmm

[owlstead]

The remaining stems have been plucked to ensure its DNA at least survives. Scientists hope to revive the plant at a later date, when full cloning from one strand of DNA is made feasible.

Same flower?

[FriedTurkey]

How do we know that the original flower isn't still extinct? A new flower could have evolved back to look like the extinct flower. There is nothing in the article about testing it with a 70 year old sample.

Re:Same flower?

[DrinkingIllini]

Somehow I don't see evolution doing the job in 70 years, that's pretty quick, even for a small plant and the odds of tracing the exact same evolutionary path twice are quite daunting. Especially in the case where apparently this flower had not much of an evolutionary advantage to begin with, as it was believed to be extinct

Re:Same flower?

[kurzweilfreak]

Not evolution? God must've put it back then. It's the only logical solution!

Re:Same flower?

[mattOzan]

could have evolved back? In 70 years? Hell, maybe it just happened over the weekend. Speaking of which, where's my third arm? I've been here over 30 years now, and I can't see what is taking evolution so long!

OK, granted a flower probably has at least one generation per year, while I do not. But still, "evolution" is generally thought to proceed in the span of millions of generations, not tens.

wait, you're not from Dover, Pensylvannia, are you?

Re:Same flower?

[FriedTurkey]

Insects evolve new species every year. Plants would probably evolve just as fast.

A related species could be very similar and only small mutations would make it closely look like the species.

Re:Same flower?

[That's Unpossible!]

Not evolution? God must've put it back then. It's the only logical solution!

Ummm, more likely they were mistaken about it being extinct.

Re:Same flower?

[Elminst]

Insects can effectively evolve in a year because the typical insect lifespan is measured in DAYS, weeks at most.

So when you have 50+ generations in a year, you tend to see new things more often.

Plant lifespans are usually considerably more than that. Especially when you consider that many species of plants are programmed to let their seeds lie dormant for years/decades/centuries until just the right conditions arise. (which is thought to be the case here, if you RTFA)

As opposed to our lifespans of 70+ years, with new "generations" usually around every 20-30. It takes a bit longer for us to "evolve"

Re:Same flower?

[kurzweilfreak]

Joke

Humor

Lighten up...

Re:Same flower?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass mods wouldn't know humor if it bit them in the ass.

Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Senor_Programmer]

Life evolves to fill holes in ecology.
The time scales are seldom conceivable in human terms, because they are long relative to human attention span in some cases and lifetime in others. However, in the end life always evolves to fill holes in the ecology. It's the holes that come and go. Wrap your mind around this like you did the concept of holes in electronics ;-)

Just because some particular life has evolved away (become extinct) doesn't mean that it can't come back given the right conditions. It might come back in a little bit different form. Fossil records don't show continuity of existance, only evolving form. How the hell do we puny humans know, in our quick as a wink relative to evolution of life time, that this is NOT a natural process in evolution?

Come on all you natural philosphers. What do you say?

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How the hell do we puny humans know [...] that this is NOT a natural process in evolution?"
You mean like exactly the same flower evolved to fill in what you call a "hole"? You're like I.D.-ers, you've almost grasped it but still waaaay wrong.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well no, the state of things was different this time around. Also, instead of 'native' amerticans clearing away grasses with their annual firings, the rabbits did it.

What's "I.D.-ers" ?

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[juju2112]

It's only been 70 years. Evolution does not work that fast.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Evolution does not work that fast"

If the pink flower is extinct but the blue flower is still about, evolution certainly can work that fast.

It was not clear from the article, and it never is with these things, just how distinct that particular plant is. We've got 'discoveries' of new species of primates based solely on the language they use which IMO is a pretty darn thin distinction and something that could 'evolve' in a few generations, even in primates.

Here's some evolution for you.
Many birds have some to associate the sound of a lawnmower with food. Next time you plan to cut your grass observe what the birds are doing. Now, start your mower but don't start cutting the grass. You'll see a shift in attention and an increase in number among the birds. This is not 'slow' evolution. It's pretty darn fast and has caused a huge change in bird population ratios in urban areas.

Kildeer's nest in open areas with rocks and gravel. The huge nesting area afforded by gravel ballested roofing in industrial parks has led to a population explosion with more kildeers competing for food and squeezoing out other species. If you look carefully you'll notice slight differences in coloration amongst urban and rural kildeers. It's not grime.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[SubtleNuance]

Just because some particular life has evolved away (become extinct) doesn't mean that it can't come back given the right conditions

I have two problems with this.

1) It suggests that HUMANS arnt responsible for mass modern extinction, just 'changes in the holes'. Thats nonsense. We are destroying the natural world, in such a way that we are removing these niches that plants and animals formerly occupied.

2) once a plant is gone it doesnt 'rematerialize'. Its genetic advantages are lost forever. in the case of this flower, it didnt just 're-appear in a jiffy' to fill the old niche. it A) probably existed all along or B) formerly dormant seeds germinated and multiplied.

What didnt happen is one plant, sensing the niche vacant, didnt 'give birth' to the SAME species as had been extinct.

Its the same flower. not a newly created flower the same as the old one (?) or someshiat.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Matt Edd]

Here's some evolution for you... blah blah

That is not evolution. That is adaptation.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

intelligent design-ers, i.e., people that think we and evolution are a product of an intelligent being's design.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not suggest that humans are not responsible for extinctions. Only that their puny brains can't grasp the dynamic of life and the time scales involved. Their difficulty with time is both in relation to human lifetime AND in relation to human attention span.

I did not say that a plant rematerializes, What happens is competition for a niche favors specialization in the same plants which specialized to fill it before. Identical? Not likely. Better suited, most definitely because the environment is not exactly the same as it was before.

I have a problem with the anthropromorphism. Plants don't 'sense' ecological niches. They compete with those in the most similar niche having the greatest advantage.

Eriogonum (wild buckwheat) is a common plant with wide diversification. It is not inconceivable that a nearby (in terms of morphology, location, and environmenta requirements) cousin did not fill the spot opened by rabbits.

Isn't it strange that 'non-native'grasses catch the blame for 'extinction' rather than a cessation of annual burning by native americans...both of which are non-native!

No, blame man for messing with nature rather than accepting that he is part of it. Dolphins get the joke, that's why they are always smiling.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Riktov]

Just because some particular life has evolved away (become extinct) doesn't mean that it can't come back given the right conditions. It might come back in a little bit different form.

Precisely what do you mean by "particular life" and "different form"?

Sure the "different form" could somehow end up being morphologically similar, even genetically identical, but does that make it the same species? That is, if A branches off to B1 and B2, as long as they branched, their descendants (C1 and C2) could never be considered the same, could they?

Saying they could is like saying if your descendants and your cousin's descendants just happened to somehow end up genetically close (to an arbitrary degree) you could call them siblings.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[espek]

You mean what has traditionally been referred to as God? Looks like the marketing department has gotten their hands on that too and turned it into: "Intelligent Design is a scalable, multi-platform metaphysical groupware solution."

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Creedo]

That is not evolution. That is adaptation.

And what do you think evolution is?

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[NeoSkandranon]

Adaptation is a change in behavior.

Evolution is a chage of genetics.

With the example of your birds, think: Do baby birds get born with the advantage? If no, it's adaptation (And they are certainly not born knowing lawnmowers = food. That is learned behavior)

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil records don't show continuity of existance, only evolving form.

The fossil record does not show evolving form. The fossil record shows different, fully formed, creatures. Contrary to your assertion, it does not support the 'General Theory of Evolution'. You must first prove that changes can happen that move from one kind of creature to another. Despite the noise by evolutionists, this has never been shown.

How the hell do we puny humans know, in our quick as a wink relative to evolution of life time, that this is NOT a natural process in evolution?

How do you know God did not create everything in 6 days? How do you know that evolution occurs? Where is your proof that millions, or billions of years have passed? In fact, you have nothing to support any of these contentions. They are based upon assumptions about the interpretation of what we see. What strikes me as amazing is that on the one hand you recognize our limitations, and on the other you accept as fact evolution occured when no facts support that assumption.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[operagost]

Why would evolution cause a species which had proved it wasn't well-adapted reappear?

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[operagost]

2) once a plant is gone it doesnt 'rematerialize'. Its genetic advantages are lost forever.

So you're saying that a specific genetic code is unique and cannot possibly be duplicated?

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in the same sense that water "cannot possibly" rise out of a glass through a fortuitous alignment of Brownian motion. The probability of it happening is indistinguishable from zero.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[OreoCookie]

once a plant is gone it doesnt 'rematerialize'. Its genetic advantages are lost forever.

Forever? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the primordial ooze 6 billion years ago did not contain the genetic code for pretty little wild flowers, and yet they exist.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[ChrisMaple]

in the same sense that water "cannot possibly" rise out of a glass through a fortuitous alignment of Brownian motion.

Evaporation.

Small-scale re-evolution is not too terribly unlikely if the genetic change is very small and conditions are favorable.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[OneSmartFellow]

It's only been 70 years. Evolution does not work that fast.

WRONG !

The number of generations is what is important, 70 years is long enough for bacteria to mutate and evolve.

evolution does too work 'that fast'

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Chris Clarke]

Fossil records don't show continuity of existance, only evolving form.

That's pretty much exactly wrong. The fact is that fossil records show far more stability of species forms - over periods lasting millions of years - than change. So much so,, in fact, that it was a problem reconciling the fossil record with the classical notion of incremental evolution over time. That's why Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge had to come up with the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium, in which long periods of statsis alternate with rapid speciation.

How the hell do we puny humans know, in our quick as a wink relative to evolution of life time, that this is NOT a natural process in evolution?

Because evolution doesn't work that way. It's not unlikely that a new eriogonum species would evolve to fill a nche left by the extinction of another eriogonum, but the chances that it would closely resemble the old species - to the point where botanists had a hard time distinguishing the two - are infinitesimal.

Come on all you natural philosphers. What do you say?

I say your time would be well-spent reading a basic text in evolution or plant biology.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know God did not create everything in 6 days? How do you know that evolution occurs? Where is your proof that millions, or billions of years have passed?

God told me.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[tonywong]

What you are suggesting is analogs in evolution, such as reindeer and caribou, which fill equivalent niches in their respective environments.

Analogs may be very close in phenotype (expressed physical traits), but genetically are quite different.

If they rediscovered this plant, they would have checked it against known genotypes and found that it is the 'extinct' species.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[SubtleNuance]

No, blame man for messing with nature rather than accepting that he is part of it.

This is the flaw in your outlook.

Man is both a part of nature, and not a part. We have developed beyond the confines of nature.

for instance, your computer. If you put it in a bucket of soil in the garden will it grow a new computer? No. It is the assembly, down to the most intimate and amazing detail. It does not exist 'in nature'.

our roads, cities, chemicals, fabrics, etc etc etc are all extra-nature. They are not a part of the natural world. Sure, they exist from raw naturally occuring materials, but they are distinctly not-natural.

So. Back to extinction. What we humans are doing to nature is on a physical and time-scale far beyond the history of the planet.

We are not changing the world in a way that the rest of the natural world can grok. All the plants and animals that had co-evolved with us for millenia have suddenly found themselves outside of the planet's future.

We are terra-forming the planet without concern to preserve our co-dependant natural world. This is both immoral and self-destructive. It is hubris like yours (frankly), the "humans are simply nature, what we are doing is natural, dont worry" is seductive but untrue.

When humanity is gone from the world, i know we nature will recover. From the simplest surviving bacteria, nature will once again rule the earth when we are gone. HOWEVER, to simply shrug off the loss of our biodiversity through human-activity induced extinction is a tragedy.

We should have more respect for the plants and animals that we have depended on and co-existed with for millennia. They have unquantifiable value.

We have discoverd ourselves unchained (almost) by the natural world. It is now our moral responsibility to preserve the nature we have fundementally discovered ourselves no longer dependant on.

Millenia from now -- if we last that long -- this will be viewed as a time of untold crime.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[venicebeach]

Man is both a part of nature, and not a part. We have developed beyond the confines of nature.

No, we're still here within nature. You are arguing about the definition of nature, but you don't really provide a good clarification of what you think nature is - what could it be that we have are outside of now and weren't before?

for instance, your computer. If you put it in a bucket of soil in the garden will it grow a new computer? No. It is the assembly, down to the most intimate and amazing detail. It does not exist 'in nature'.

I see, so nature is all the stuff that spontaneously grows in soil then? Why draw the line there? Beaver dams don't suddenly appear in soil either, at least not without the help of beavers.

our roads, cities, chemicals, fabrics, etc etc etc are all extra-nature. They are not a part of the natural world. Sure, they exist from raw naturally occuring materials, but they are distinctly not-natural.

Nature is constantly rearranging itself into new combinations of things. How did Mother Nature lose custody of these particular children? Tree stuff becomes book stuff and it is metaphysically different because of it?

We are not changing the world in a way that the rest of the natural world can grok. All the plants and animals that had co-evolved with us for millenia have suddenly found themselves outside of the planet's future.

Welcome to nature. This is the way things work here. Things come and go.

We are terra-forming the planet without concern to preserve our co-dependant natural world. This is both immoral and self-destructive. It is hubris like yours (frankly), the "humans are simply nature, what we are doing is natural, dont worry" is seductive but untrue.

Now, here I agree with you. That we are part of nature does not ensure our continual existence, in fact probably the opposite. We should use our natural evolved ability of foresight to consider the effects of our actions.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, parent, but that's just not a correct summary of evolution theory at all. Reread that chapter.

Evolution is not a change of genetics. It is the effect of natural selection (ie. death) applied to variation. Variation is created by _mutation_, which is your aforementioned genetic change.

An evolutionary explanation to the scenario would be as follows:

Some baby birds are born with the ability to understand that lawnmowers==food, and some aren't. This could be simply brain capacity, for example.

Baby birds that have this genetic advantage in a lawnmower-centric environment are more "fit" because they can obtain food that the non-advantaged birds cannot. They tend to survive in greater numbers and pass on their advantageous genes. The non-advantaged birds quickly go the way of the dodo.

Fire up your lawnmower today and help breed a better bird!

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[shawb]

And, honestly, the only thing that makes the act of environmental destruction immoral is our ability to sit back and ask whether it is the right thing to do. I think that is one of the key aspects of humanity that puts us above the natural world. Yes, we are from the natural world, and rely on it, but have the ability to make choices about what we do to it rather than just reacting to an ever changing environment. And the ironic thing about the human experiment is that if we fail on the ecological test and devastate the environment, life is flexible and diverse enough that it will probably find a way again. Just that humans won't make it to that next do-over. So environmentalists, when viewed on a long enough time scale, are simply humanists.

Of course, this all assumes that we can't come up with a technology powerfull enough to simply end existence.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem of course is that if C1 & C2 are sufficiently similiar, we can't in retrospect ever classify them as C1 & C2!

Looking backwards (through the fossil record, for example) we'd be unable to differentiate them at all, and would designate them simply C. We'd be busy wracking our brains trying to determine whether they descended from B1 or B2.

(For something like this to realistically occur the "branch" would probably not be large enough to classify B1 & B2 as separate species in the first place, so reality throws us a bone there.)

The "siblings" argument, however, applies to individuals, and usually classification involves species. If members of C1 & C2 were capable of interbreeding and producing viable, fertile offspring...then yes, they'd be classified as the same species.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't tell if this is -1: Flamebait or +1: Devil's Advocate. But I'll bite anyways, hoping it's the latter. The phrase Fossil records don't show continuity of existance, only evolving form. does not mean that the "intermediary" creatures are not fully formed creatures. It means that if you look at a set in cronological (according to currently accepted scientific tests on material dating) order, it can be quite apparent that the descendants gradually changed from one form to another.

And anyone who says there is "no evidence" for evolution are either not looking or are blinded by their own hubris on their beliefs of the workings of the world. We have seen evolution happening on the human time scale, from bacterial resistance to changes in distribution of sizes in fish populations due to fishing with a particular size net (changes that still remain after that net is no longer used.) An even more striking support for evolution can be found if you analyze the interior functioning of animals than the outside morphology. There are many organs and configurations that simply do not make sense unless you consider it in the context of evolution, that to get from type A to type B, you had to go through this, this and this step, and that's why certain limitations exist. The individual pieces of evidence may not directly prove evolution right in and of themselves, but the vast body of evidence points to the fact that evolution did, and still does, occur. And that is the thing about science: it is all about saying "considering the evidence, this is the most logical way that the world works."

And come on...

based upon assumptions about the interpretation of what we see is going to give a much more accurate model of the world than assuming that writings based on legends thousands of years old, which went through many translations based on a political figure's desire for more power and are riddled with inconsistency are the absolute truth about how the world works. If anyone says that Genesis is an accurate enough portrayal of the earth's creation and our evolution to age the earth, then ask them which god made first: birds or man. According to the 6 days myth, birds were made a day or two before man. According to the garden of eden myth, Adam named the individual birds as god created them, meaning that man was created before birds. Hence, the bible is not an infallible record of the creation of the earth. Time to look for a better explanation if you want to know how we really got here. I think science has a much more internally consistent, albeit partially incomplete, working model of reality.

And this isn't even going to get into the fact that religion claims to better mankind, when throughout history the most brutal and heinous acts were visited upon man because of religion. Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, Human sacrifice, Holy wars (and this is just judeo-christianity.) Yet while science does not exist to better mankind, it is a tool that rational thinkers have used time and time again to attempt to do so. Medical science has relieved physical suffering. Social sciences have worked to eliminate or reduce many pressures that people face in day to day life (pressures which religious people often enforce.) Scientific findings can be used to harm people, but it usually turns out that those who do use technology to harm others are those who claim to have spoken with god and carrying out his will. Hint: they're just using that as an excuse to gain more power and prevent others from questioning their actions.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[shawb]

The species was only proven to be maladapted for a particular period of time. And evolution isn't about conscious choices. Evolution is about trial and error. Blind trial and error can lead to trying the same mistake over and over and over. There is no record of "this didn't work, we should not try it again."

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Jaeph]

"Evolution does not work that fast."

Sure it does. If something breeds quickly (e.g. fruit fly) you could certainly see a genetic shift in response to the environment in that time.

I don't think this is "evolution", of course, just pointing out that your blanket statement doesn't seem correct.

-Jeff

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[shawb]

Or it could just be that lawnmowers fire a natural trigger that had been installed by natural forces. Many insects take wing more often when a thunderstorm is on it's way in. The thunder could become a trigger to the birds that these insects will soon take flight. The sound of a lawnmower may be similar enough in a bird to provide the reaction which is essentially pavlovian, but on an evolutionary scale rather than behavior. There are probably basic pavlovian behavior modifications going on as well, birds learning that lawnmowers kick up bugs (or simply expose them by shortening the grass, or in the case of herbivores distributing plant clippings) and so get hungry at the sound of a lawnmower. Once fixed in a bird, the behaviour could even be passed down to offspring ala memetic rather than genetic evolution.

Or it could be, as you were saying, that genetic predisposition to food search when lawnmowers are running makes birds more evolutionarilly fit in an environment where lawnmower expose food, and so "natural" selection favors these birds at this time.

But with something as complex as behavior (remembering that all biological processes, even behavior, are at their roots chemical processes) it is most likely a combination of causes that leads to birds flying when lawnmowers are turned on: genetic predisposition and triggers with previous circumstances allow the birds to become more succesfull if the respond to this stimulus, through a combination of instinct, training and learning. And for me, the simple answer is that in any complex system, the answer will most likely be complex.

Sorry about the flow of consciousness writing with no real organization or main point to make. I'm just in that kind of mood today.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[overeduc8ed]

it A) probably existed all along or B) formerly dormant seeds germinated and multiplied.

"B" is a likely explanation for this story. California has been inundated with storm after storm this rainy season, resulting in massive blooms even in such forbidding places as Death Valley. Seeds that have been dormant for years finally decided this winter was the right time to wake up and party.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[neurojab]

Man is both a part of nature, and not a part. We have developed beyond the confines of nature.

I woudn't put it that way exactly. We are a part of nature. The only difference is that we've been fruitful and become the dominant species on the planet. Since we are the dominant species, and also have consiousness, we have the capability to make decisions that will directly impact the course of life on the earth. To deny that the human race can't impact the environment is completely silly. We can, will, and do, impact the environment with everything we do. Even a bear (or a human) taking a crap in the woods impacts the environment. As the dominant species, and with the level of technology at our disposal, we can multiply our effect on the environment by an order of magnitude.

Wielding this power gives us a choice: We can choose to keep the planet nice, or we can choose to turn it into a giant garbage dump. If we choose the latter, we may ultimately destroy ourselves. Either way, life on earth will continue... but it may take millions of years after the human race is extinct to reach the level of biodiversity that we have today. We are a part of the planet's future, whether we crap it up or not.

Re:Was it rediscovered OR did it re-evolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not say we should not respect nature.

I do disagree with the preservation camp.

I agree that man is and is not a part of nature, in that he can imagine consequences of his actions. However I strongly disagree that preservation. That is trying to treat chunks of the earth as if man did not exist is the best way for man to interact with nature.

American natives managed nature. They were conservationists. Conservation involves analysis, planning, and action. The Nature Conservancy is a good example of effective conservation. Preservation, ala Sierra Club, is wrong because the copre philosphy is preservation and stability. Nature is not stable and ill considered action such as fighting natural fires while prohibiting managed burning(which the godlike, in the eyes of most preservationists, did engge in quite frequently) results in very unnatural fires in terms of their size and scope.

Respect, yes. Preservation of every last variant no matter how small the variations contribution to global ecology? No, I think this is the wrong approach.

When we purchased our intown Atlanta house, there were squirrels, pigeons, and winos everywhere. FOr the past few years a pair of falcons and a buzzard hawk(red tail) have been living in the area. The squirrel population is down, pigeons are a rare site, and strangely, we have huge numbers of morning doves which were not common before. The wino's have left as well, mainly because of complaints about unlawful camping in the nearby Federal Park.

My point is that the birds of prey have adapted. It was not necessary to preserve their natural habitat. Conservaton measures such as requiring that nests be left undisturbed have been sufficient.

On to the opossum. 20 years ago there were hundreds of opossums living in the city. The city allocated trash containers which are pretty much possum proof and the population declined. About 10 years ago the population began to increase. What happened? I do not know for sure, but for a number of years I observed Mr Opossum dining on dog feces in the park. About 3 years ago the ordinances requiring collection of one's dogs droppings began to be enforced. Guess what? Very few oppossums.

My point is that small things man does cause large changes in populations and I suspect even viability. I often wonder if the preservations are not making things worse by 'helping' things that can't or even worse, that they are afraid can't adapt. The, IMO, nuts who are moving turtle eggs about are not helping the turtle adapt(lots of adaptation adds up to evolution, no?). Better the conservaton groups who say, 'stay off the beach while turtles are laying their eggs'.

Nature is either a resource to be conserved(managerd) or something magical to be forced into what, near blind to it, man feels is right. IMO it's better not to force nature and better to not forget that man is a part of it.b

Quick get the weedkiller!

[amazeranand]

/. Headline cannot be wrong. Get some napalm or a molotov if u have any too...

Just goes to show

[SimianOverlord]

I imagine plants must be incredibly difficult to "declare extinct", after all - how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America? Whilst plants may seem to be local to a specific area because of their preference for a certain type of soil, pH or shade, it doesn't follow that, because the ones you know about are dead, then the plant is extinct. It's too easy to rush to judgement, especially when environmentalists have an interest in declaring loudly how many species are threatened or are already extinct. After reading "A State Of Fear" recently, and whilst I haven't fallen for all of Crichtons selective misrepresentations, I suspect their motivations a bit more than I used to.

Re:Just goes to show

[abb3w]

I imagine plants must be incredibly difficult to "declare extinct", after all - how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America?

Not to mention, how many seeds still are scattered that might yet someday germinate?

Re:Just goes to show

[hey!]

It also makes you wonder whether there are species of plants that we're walking by every day that are completely unknown to science.

especially when environmentalists have an interest in declaring loudly how many species are threatened or are already extinct.

Oh, that's an ad hominem. When the public can be made to understand that the issue is the issue is the loss of habitat diversity and its associated genetic information, then we can talk in more sophisticated ways.

Re:Just goes to show

[Threni]

> especially when environmentalists have an interest in declaring loudly how many
> species are threatened or are already extinct

Which interest would that be? Protecting the environment? The fiends! Always thinking of other species and future generations! Why don't they just follow whatever line is put out by whoever happens to be in power at the time? They're un-American and anti-human!

Re:Just goes to show

[dheltzel]

I imagine plants must be incredibly difficult to "declare extinct", after all - how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America? Whilst plants may seem to be local to a specific area because of their preference for a certain type of soil, pH or shade, it doesn't follow that, because the ones you know about are dead, then the plant is extinct.

Good point. This is obviously a case where there was a rush to judgement 70 years ago. It also tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in that few botanists were looking for an "extinct" species. Perhaps that gave it the time to recover. It's also well accepted that seeds can survive for a long time under some pretty adverse conditions and restart a population that was thought to be long gone.

You're also right about the motivations. An extinct species has a certain "cache'". I know because I breed tropical fish and I have 3 species that are "known" to be extinct in the wild. 2 of these are annual fish that lay eggs in the mud, then die when their pond dries out. They don't seem to have as much longevity as plant seeds, but the same principle could bring them back. Since they still exist in the aquaium hobby, we are happily breeding them and the tag "extinct in the wild" does make them more interesting. I'm honestly not sure how excited I would be to find that they were rediscovered. I think I would be pleased, but it's so cool to have such rare fish living and breeding in my basement. They are prolific too, I can assure you they didn't die out from low libidos.

Re:Just goes to show

[PMuse]

Good: Eriogonom truncatum is alive. The Ivory Bill is alive.
Bad: Which some people will say means it was unnecessary to have so many laws protecting the environment these last 30 years.
Good: Their return from the dead may spark kids' interest in biology and conservation.
Bad: Their return from the dead will fuel the public's distrust of any prediction of environmental disaster since "the scientists were wrong last time."

All in all, though, where there's life, there's hope.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Motives? Sure. Let's just pretend that the people on the other side of the issue have no ulterior motives whatsoever in trying to discredit environmentalism.

Re:Just goes to show

[orionware]

Simian,

You obviously don't understand that we eco-freaks who so arrogantly tell the rest of you nature hating meat eating breeders that you have no right to take advantage of nature, have this mother-earth granted ability to declare the Red Cocked Fruit Faced Ass Warbler to be extinct because we just haven't seen it lately on walk about. Geez..

Re:Just goes to show

[aiabx]

After reading "A State Of Fear" recently, and whilst I haven't fallen for all of Crichtons selective misrepresentations, I suspect their motivations a bit more than I used to.

If this is how you learn about how people think about risks to the environment, please promise me you'll never read "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
-aiabx

Re:Just goes to show

[sp0rk173]

Oh, that's an ad hominem. When the public can be made to understand that the issue is the issue is the loss of habitat diversity and its associated genetic information, then we can talk in more sophisticated ways.

Just wanted to say, "word up" to that. There is inherent, long-term societal value in biodiversity. Disregarding the preservation of biodiversity as chicken-little type cries for attention from environmental-wackos is foolish.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

how would you show for sure that none are present in a country the size of America?

Where's the country called America?

messing with evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

sea turtles are laying their eggs on the East coast of USA.

concerned nature lovers are helping these turtles toward extinction by moving their eggs further from the high tide line. 'because the turtles are lazy and don't always pick a high enough spot'

i kid you not.

these nature lovers are breeding failure back into the turtle population. they are also breeding in speed because when the young turtles have a longer trip to the sea, they are more likely to be eaten by snakes, sea birds, feral dogs, feral pigs, coyotes, small childrem, etc. once they get to the sea, they better have good stamina because after that much longer run to the water they still have to elude marine prey.

Re:messing with evolution

[StalinsNotDead]

once they get to the sea, they better have good stamina because after that much longer run to the water they still have to elude marine prey.

I think you meant predators. As eluding prey would mean hiding from your food source.

Re:messing with evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no... that isn't a mistake. Sea turtles are ambush hunters???

Well, with Diablo on the loose...

[Harker]

After loosing at Diablo II, we all just figured that everything was extinct.

Re:Well, with Diablo on the loose...

[110010001000]

Wow - you used "loose" correctly but "loosing" incorrectly in the same post. Thats gotta be a first.

Re:Well, with Diablo on the loose...

[Harker]

I have no excuse, other than it's the end of a 12.5 hour night shift....

H.

Re:Well, with Diablo on the loose...

[databyss]

I submit the previous post as exhibit "A" in my case against employment!

We now have hard, scientific evidence that employment leads to lower intelligence.

Re:Well, with Diablo on the loose...

[UziBeatle]

Well, I'm thinking maybe he meant 'loosing' as in
my Uber Sorceress ChillaDeathBitch 'loosed' a series
of ultra freezing killer ice orbs and killed EVERYTHING on the screen! My bitch be the baddest! Whoa, all you bitches be dead now. Muahahaha.

Loose this, biaotch.

So, maybe, perhaps, he used the term correctly?

Just an idea.

Breaking News

[1967mustangman]

Dodo birds not actually extinct just on 330 year vacation...............(nice thought isn't it) Seriously though it is kind of interesting that 2 "extinct" species have been rediscovered in the last couple of months

Re:Breaking News

[aussie_a]

And there was also a Time Traveller convention. Co-incidence? I think not.

Re:Breaking News

[1967mustangman]

This has all the marks of Dirk Gently. Remember it was only Reg's efforts to save the cyclanth that made the dodo bird go extinct

In other news...

[xAXISx]

the Berkeley graduate student's girlfriend was flattered with the flower her boyfriend gave her.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. The word dainty was used....

Re:In other news...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

In other other news, studies show that any guy using "grok" as part of his normal vocabulary will not have a girlfriend.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but, I keep getting e-mails saying beutiful Georgian girls love americans!

Not Extinct - We have hope yet

[ishrat]

Looks like the doomsday guys need to do a rethink, Maybe we aren't so badly placed after all.
Moreover I feel just like petrol was nothing till the automotives came , the lowly sand or dirty effluents may yet make our day and we may yet have regions of the earth flourishing suddenly as did the arab countries.

Amazing Coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

What luck! Imagine finding thought to be extinct Mount Diablo buckwheat on the slopes of Mount Diablo? That's got to be one for the record books!

Re:Amazing Coincidence

[bobpence]

Berkeley puts out geniuses. Specifically, for every 100 it takes in, about 3 make it out. The rest become addle-brained communists.

When you go to San Francisco

[lheal]

Be sure to adorn yourself with, for example, some nonextinct wildflowers known as Mount Diable Buckwheat in your hair.

When you travel to the metropolitan Bay Area, typically you will encounter some nonviolent people attempting to change the world through peaceful coexistence and overpriced real estate.

To ensure your acceptance, decorate yourself with several varieties of attractive vascular plants.

Re:When you go to San Francisco

[hey!]

All you guys that make fun of hippies are just jealous of the era of free love and STDs that could be cured by sort course of penicillin.

Back in the late 60's early 70's, everything that had a pulse got shagged. Wearing sideburns and bell bottoms was a small price to pay.

Re:When you go to San Francisco

[wk633]

How did this get modded 'offtopic' and the parent not? Yeesh, my kngdom for mod points today.

Dude, you scored a 'funny' in my book.

Shortly after its discovery

[springbox]

An excited grad student accidently steps on the flower

Seems logical

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAB[otanist], but doesn't it seem like if you're going to go looking for a flower called Mt. Diablo buckwheat, wouldn't you kind of expect to find it somewhere around Mt. Diablo? Is this seriously the first time anyone's looked there?

This just in i'm a wanker

[Mr Hurty]

Eriogonom = what the fuck does that mean...oooh i know i'll use a big word and fucked if the mods dont gimme points for it

Re:This just in i'm a wanker

[jacksonj04]

It's part of the name of the flower.

RTFA

Re:This just in i'm a wanker

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in... it's the name of the flower, troll. I may be feeding you, but just in case a mod agrees with your sentiment, it's worth attaching this.

It's even in the summary, you don't have to read the article. So I guess it's not "just in." It was in from the beginning.

Re:This just in i'm a wanker

[Nutria]

Eriogonom = what the fuck does that mean.

Use the Google, Mr. Hydrocephalic.

Every hit on "Eriogonom truncatum" tells you what it is.

Re:This just in i'm a wanker

[shawb]

Not to mention that google can lead to articles with much more information as a whole. Granted the writing style on that one is a tad dry with a little bit of jargon, but hey. Hmm... linked page also has some fairly big pictures, so I'd better coralize the link before it goes down.

Re:This just in i'm a wanker

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you calling him "hydrocephalic"? Hydrocephaly does not necessarily cause lowered IQ. Maybe you meant "anencephalic".

Last of the season....

[Himring]

Sid: "Oh look! A dandelion!" [munch, gulp]
Frank: "Carl, he ruined our salad!..."
Carl: "Take it easy Frank. Let 'im get some distance first...."

quincunx

[troon]

What I say is "Slashdot responses are all computer-generated, except mine". Time after time a common thread appears in consecutive posts. In this case, the post before also talks about re-evolution.

I think a random subject generator isn't quite working properly.

From now on, I'm going to note these occurrences with a subject of "quincunx", a word that sounds outstandingly profane, but actually isn't.

What are the chances?

[aziraphale]

I find it amazing that, of all the places that Mount Diablo Buckwheat should turn up, it'd be on the slopes of Mount Diablo.

It's funny nobody thought of looking there before...

Re:What are the chances?

[Swanktastic]

Mount Diablo Buckwheat One, why can't you be more like Mount Diablo Buckwheat Two?

share the wealth!

[FatTony22]

"the flower was presumed extinct, she said, because its habitat has been overrun by introduced grasses"

I wish I could introduce some of these grasses to my lawn...

weeds? meet grasses..

Re:share the wealth!

[hey!]

The timeworn observation is that all you need to grow healthy grass is a crack in your sidewalk.

The difficult thing about growing an American style lawn is that it is a fight against entropy. I want my grass here, but not there; I want my lawn to consist of exactly one variety of grass, even though this sort of thing doesn't happen in nature. Monocultures deplete one set of nutrients that the species needs, and excretes wastes that are nutrients for another species...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd figure 'mount diablo' would be a good place to start looking for an extinct flower called 'Mount Diablo buckwheat'

Re:Whoa!

[Nicolas MONNET]

It certainly does not look like a bee, more like a wasp.

Not the only remaining ones

[InsaneCreator]

I saw some of those flowers behind my house the other day when I was taking my pet Dodo for a walk.

Re:Not the only remaining ones

[rvr]

You could have added that is was in the shade of the Wollemi Pine.

ps You can register for acquiring this plant on their site! Can't wait...

I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Colin Smith]

Extinction is the history of the earth. If a species is unsuitable for it's environment it dies out and is replaced by something else. Contrary to popular belief, no species has a right to exist.

It would only concern me if key species that humans depend on were dying out.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the rate of species going extinct accelerates too much (and it seems to have undergone massive acceleration in certain environments due to human intervention), it threatens the overall stability of the local ecosystem, including species important to humans.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[ElAurian]

The problem is, we usually don't know which species are the important ones until they are gone.

And who'd have thought that you could find disease cures or amazingly advanced painkillers in rainforest plants?

Biodiversity is one of the most valuable resources humans have, and we're burning it. Like burning the library of Alexandria, but a thousand times worse.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[hyfe]

Contrary to popular belief, no species has a right to exist.

Ah, that explains your foreign policy. Those pesky arabs heh?

.

sorry :)

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Kjella]

Extinction is the history of the earth. If a species is unsuitable for it's environment it dies out and is replaced by something else. Contrary to popular belief, no species has a right to exist. It would only concern me if key species that humans depend on were dying out.

Yes, that happens occasionally. But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple centuries have been due to mankind either exterminating that environment (to grow crops, build cities and dams, through pollution++), excessive hunting or vastly changing it by introducing foreign species.

You can't expect wildlife to evolve to defend against bulldozers and bullets. And I do believe it is right to try to preserve them for posterity. It is for the same reason that we try to protect different languages, culture, historical buildings etc. etc.

It is not a question of whether or not the world would work fine if we were all the same, but we would all be poorer for it. Mankind could live with only "regulated" nature, with crops and planted forests, fish raised in tanks and domesticated animals, but it would not be wildlife. We have an obligation to preserve wildlife and the diversity of nature, including to shelter it.

It is not as if we are interfering with natural selection. If that plant is evolutionary doomed, it still is. Or because we've screwed them up and are trying to undo it. Ultimately we're keeping them around on "life support" for our benefit, not theirs.

And even if that wasn't true, is there really no room for anything but what serves us? That only our species and those we depend on have any value? If so, I hope the Vogons drop by and develop a new interstellar bypass before we reach out to the stars. I mean, obviously the Vogons aren't dependent on these ape-decendants...

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[JDevers]

Actually, there is a LOT of life that has evolved to fit our world. They are almost ALL pests (or pets), but few people could argue that various flies, mosquitos, pigeons, rodents many bacteria and unicellular organisms(Plasmodium falciparium (malaria) springs to mind as an organism which absolutely depends on mankind), etc haven't benefited greatly from man's changing of the world.

I agree with your sentiment though, the diversity we see in the natural world today can not exist in the version of the world humans would ultimately create if we don't change our path.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[b-baggins]

And who'd have thought that you could find disease cures or amazingly advanced painkillers in rainforest plants?

Oh, just about every botanist and chemist for the past three hundred years or so. You see, many of our medicines have come from plants for many centuries, now, so it's only reasonable to assume that a jungle, full of exotic plants would be full of exotic chemicals that we could make medicines from.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that happens occasionally. But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple centuries have been due to mankind

There was a time, long ago, before humans existed, when someone might have said:

"yes, that happens occasionally. But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple of centuries has been due to that commet"

and even before that:

"yes, that happens occasionally. But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple of centuries has been due to that world-wide ice age"

and so on:

"yes, that happens occasionally. But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple of centuries has been due to that gamma-ray burst"

face it. the universe exterminates life all the time. Intelligent species are just the universe's latest method for doing it. If you could have stopped the comet that killed the dinosaurs because, "omg, this is unnatural! We can't allow this!!" then you would have prevented the evolution of humans - and I for one don't believe that dinosaurs would ever have become intelligent. Similarly, you could stop human-caused extinctions by just getting rid of humans. But guess what, eventually every species on this planet is going to die unless we take them with us when we leave this planet. That's the cold hard fact.

And by the way, I'm a huge environmentalist. I go camping and canoeing and am involved with a group that picks up trash on the side of the road. I recycle and I donate money to the national wilderness institute. I tell you all this because I just know you're probably the kind of person who slaps a label on someone who disagrees with you and then tunes out anything they say. So, before you have that label firmly in place, I want you to know that you're wrong. What I'm saying here is true.

Every species that evolves on this planet will go extinct. All of them. Except the ones that benefit humans enough for humans to take them off the planet when we leave - if we leave.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Colin Smith]

"The problem is, we usually don't know which species are the important ones until they are gone."

Simply not true, we do already know which species are of high value and which are not. The number of disease cures and painkillers found in rainforests is frankly irrelevant, the human race has continued in the past and will continue unabated in the future without them.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Colin Smith]

"But the vast majority of extinctions in the last couple centuries have been due to mankind either exterminating that environment (to grow crops, build cities and dams, through pollution++), excessive hunting or vastly changing it by introducing foreign species."

Sorry, but you are a naive romantic. Nature is life forms tearing each other apart, not fuzzy bunny cartoons. Mankind is just another life form taking advantage of those round about it. If they can't survive they don't deserve to.

"You can't expect wildlife to evolve to defend against bulldozers and bullets."

No, Kjella, I expect them to die.

"We have an obligation to preserve wildlife and the diversity of nature, including to shelter it."

No, we don't. We have no obligations to nature. Nature will go right on, evolving species on it's own, at some point something will come along and wipe out the human race and that will be nature too.

"And even if that wasn't true, is there really no room for anything but what serves us?"

Actually. You are almost correct. There is literally *no* room for any species which cannot survive in the environment, whatever that environment is.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

your understanding of the ecosystem is probably really good. try telling me what key species A you depend on depends on ? other species. which depend on ? other species. which depend on ? now take the chaos theory butterfly-causes-tornado thing: plant Z dies out. from Y to B everything dies out or changes insuitably. In the end species A suffers, dies or is avialable in insufficient amounts to reproduce. timeframe ? a few hundred years. You would not mind, because you hopefully have decomposed by then. but since you`re all "the great flood after me" - you COULD not really mind.
try understanding - the species that is the least relevant to other species in the ecosystem earth is humanity. we`re really good for nothing.
try going to http://www.vhemt.org/ read up and save us all the trouble.
save the daisies and go extinct !

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would only concern me if key species that humans depend on were dying out.

So, exactly which ones are the non-key species? TIA!

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[asac]

I hoped that mankind was following other virtues than those given by evolution. Otherwise, I don't see why we need laws and all. Just do what you like and what makes you survive.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[hey!]

Contrary to popular belief, no species has a right to exist.

How you frame a problem determines your policies and actions. This is the most incredibly misguided way of looking at this issue imaginable.

What we are talking about can be framed in terms of human welfare, in the short, mid and long term.

The loss of species is a loss of information; not just the information that is contained in the germ plasm, protein and anatomical structures, but information that is inherent in how that species fits into the ecological systems it has evolved. The relationship is two way -- loss of species decreases the information in the systems it is embedded in, loss of systems complexity leads to loss of speices.

Leaving aside issues of bioprospecting, you might ask what this has to do with human welfare? The answer is, a lot. When species composition changes, ecosystems find a whole new set of equilibria. Sometimes this benefits people, sometimes it hurts. More often it hurts because the opportunistic species are seldom economically valuable, and in many cases pose the potential for harm.

I'll give you a concrete example that covers both these cases. A friend of mine's family own an island, that has been in the family for well over a hundred years. Up until the 1980s, humans were the only major predators on the island, which meant there was a large deer herd -- a good thing. On the other hand, there was a large population of small rodents like meadow voles. The deer population is kept somewhat in check by human predation, but there is no such check on the rodent population. Since everything must be in the end food for something else, this meant dieases organisms and parasites: Borrelia spirochetes and ticks on the scale of a biblical plague. As a result, his family has had a decades long history of health problems: palsy, myalgia, fatigue, join pain etc., that was unexplainable until 1975. Lyme disease.

Shortly after the rediscovery of Lyme disease, it also happened that the Eastern Coyote made it out to the island. As a result the deer herd dropped, which was bad, but the population of rodents and ticks crashed as well. You can now visit the island for a week or more, tramp through the grass and woods and not find a single tick. The thing is, the coyote is filling in ecological niche that was formerly filled by wolves, extinct in this range for centuries. In fact Eastern Coyotes are relatively more wolf-like than their wester cousins, all the better to take the mantle of number one top tier predator.

It may well be the case that the reason that Lyme disease was so poorly characterized before, and so common now, can be explained by the biological impovershment of suburban and non-old growth forests.

Similar issues surround hanta virus and other "emergent" infectious agents. Why do the emerge? Well, they emerge because human progress is not undertaken with sufficient sophistication to minimize unintended consequences. People get their nose bent out of shape because they'd rather not think that their actions have unintended consequences. Well, in the long term and maybe not so long term, knowing the consequences of your actions is smart.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't expect wildlife to evolve to defend against bulldozers and bullets. And I do believe it is right to try to preserve them for posterity. It is for the same reason that we try to protect different languages, culture, historical buildings etc. etc.

You're just not trying hard enough here to understand the complexity of evolutionary theory. It's much more insidious than you might believe.

Absolutely you can, and should, expect wildlife to evolve to defend against "bulldozers and bullets". It's doing so right now! What do I mean?

Humans (like yourself, it would seem) care about preserving certain wildlife species because it might potentially benefit their own existence, and take steps to do so. It's nice to think of it as altruism, but more than likely it isn't quite so unselfish. They recognize that they and other life exist in a symbiotic relationship.

These particular "protected" wildlife species, through their own careful evolution, have evolved to be "useful" to humans. Those that haven't are in danger of dying out as humans become an increasingly significant part of the equation.

By compelling humans by various means to defend them, the wildlife species in question have proven their own fitness in the very precarious selection context of the twenty-first century.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[sfjoe]

Contrary to popular belief, no species has a right to exist. ... including homo sapiens.

Before you so blithely dismiss extinction, let me pass along an analogy the late Carl Sagan used to use. Our earth is like an airplane and each one of the species is a rivet in the airplane. Losing a few here or there makes no discernible difference. A rivet may be lost in the natural course of events and then can be replaced. If humans begin casually popping rivets out, however, there will eventually be a big problem. One moment the airplane is fine and, at some point, one too many rivets are removed and we have catastrophic failure.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Edmund Blackadder]

Well it should concern you, because while we do not depend on a key species we do depend on the diversity of species in general. Therefore, mass extinction will definately reduce the human species' chances of survival.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

Yes. We need more animals and plants adapted for obnoxious car fumes and toxic waste.

Editors Note:
I think I'll skip an intelligent arguement about how we have distorted the environment, and that the last mass extinction that the earth experinced was 65 million years ago and resulted in the dominant species of the time dying out and just make fun of this really callous and stupid suggestion.

Maybe I should just go extinct and make room for Superior NeoCons and other Social Darwinists (who are strangley pro-Intelligent Design). Obviously, obnoxious fumes don't bother Colin Smith. No Species has a right to exist --Colin Smith, 2005 No American has a right to a job --Carli Fiorina, 2004 No stinkin' kids in my yard -- Cranky Geeser, 1980 If you don't like America, then get out. --McCarthy Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. --Patton? I think, that the next person who talks about "survival of the fittest", needs to demonstrate what they are talking about by hot oil wrestling a tiger. Because, I survive with my wits, I will not only be on the otherside of the cage, but I'll sell tickets and popcorn.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

You are expecting that these nuckle-draggers have thought about this argument?

If it is about the environment or social supports then "evolution".
If it is about education then "creationism".
If it is about people that they like winning its "values".
If the other side wins then its "corruption".
If the other side cheats "where's the outrage".
If their side is accused of cheating its "a conspiracy theory".
If a country that is not on our side has a tsunami its "God's Will".
If it is a county in the bible belt with a fire its "a catastrophy of nature".

It is a mish mosh of thoughtful sounding phrases, more heat than light.

This is what is called "convenient logic". It would be a nightmare connecting this person's world view a graph of what they think is right and wrong.

Extinctions are only wrong if they happen to you.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is literally *no* room for any species which cannot survive in the environment, whatever that environment is.

How true, and how untrue! We aren't somehow "outside" of nature, of course, but we have evolved quite naturally into a species capable of modifying our own environment to an unprecedented degree. The "environment" is becoming less and less of a static thing in the shorter timescales.

We _do_ have an obligation to nature, because we are nature, and it is quite straightforward: to attempt to survive. We are among the most advanced DNA survival machines built to date. That's nature at work for you.

We can't directly control our genes, yet, so we do have to be careful to ensure we don't modify our environment in a way that affects our own fitness. Otherwise, we will die out.

Not all that bad for the dolphins, though.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

Along with cocroaches and misquitoes, we now have Tom DeLay.

These pests are well adapted. Some manufacturers could make a fortune if they found a spray to repel Ditto Heads.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

Look, I get the "nature is not just fuzzy bunnies" argument. Though simplistic, it is true. But you also don't "get" that things like a rain forest developed over millions of years and most animals live synergistically. Meaning, the tiger isn't in an arms race to develop bigger teeth and always get faster. The tiger would quickly run out of food.

Also, in environments where there is plenty of food, you find animals competing more with sexual selection rather than with direct competition. If it were all "survival of the fittest", nature would never have Peacocks. Everything would be ugly, drab killing machines. But that is far from what we see in nature.

This old discussion about "survival of the fittest" needs to evolve. Darwins theory involved "survival of the fittest". There are also more modern "theories" of evolution and perhaps there are many ways that creatures evolve. The one fact is that "things change" and that is evolution. The process of "how things change" is very complex and subtle.

But humanity is a collective society. We don't get thicker pelts, we get jackets at the Mall. This collective chest beating of a certain persuasion in our society is idiotic at best. Trying to apply a macho world view to policies over environment results in the Asthma epidemics and deforestation that we are currently hurtling into.

Do you really want to just survive? Couldn't we like, use retroviruses to improve genetic diseases. Educate and heal everyone, and compete to have extra nice things rather than on basic survival? Why can't we just be nice to eachother, and raise up the least among us? Do we have to let some go without, so that a lucky few can have 10 times the fortune they have now? You want no limits on the top or the bottom of wages but somehow you want torte reform? Can you not see who your brainwashing benefits?

If you follow your worldview to its ultimate conclusion, you would already be obsolete. In your world view, Shakespeare and Einstein can't exist, because they would be lousy at making money or running away from Tigers. There would be no leisure time to ponder beyond the mud outside our huts.

I'm sick and tired of waiting for you nuckle-draggers to grow up. I'm not going to live in your world, so you get out of mine. Find an island with Donald Trump so you can exploit eachother to your hearts content.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear. This assumption by the troglodytes among us that we shouldn't do anything to try to prevent disasters (because they may never happen after all - well, no shit dude, that's kind of like the fucking point of preventative measures) is seriously beginning to piss me off. We have it in our power to make the world a better place for everyone: why the fuck are people still voting for the people who not only don't even want to try, but aren't even going to directly benefit the voters?

What is wrong with our nation?!

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

So. The bunny is becoming fuzzier because that will get it more sympathy?

It takes a few hundred years for many animals to adapt behaviors to humans.

I'm not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that there are limits to evolution. Depending upon extra-species sympathy would be a very complicated adaptation that would require a very stable environment and a lot longer. There are examples of complicated extra-species behaviour in nature, but they all of them that I have seen look like they took a LOT of stability and time to develop.

If you are talking about "the world mind" or the mass subconsciousness of humans, then maybe, but it might be hard to rely on.

The only problem I have, is that we don't need to be giving excuses to 4 year olds. We need to get the kids to eat their fruits and vegetables and not eat sugary cereals. Explaining about minerals or simple carbohydrates just gives the wily kid a "way out".

There is such a small "down side" to following an enviro-friendly policy. The worst is that you waste some money, or make a few companies less efficient, or do something of no benefit (like with some nuclear regulation) that is based on poor science.

Right now, we are all stuck in this massive experiment. Where we are destroying things we can't replace, for what? An extra profitable quarter? And most of the benefits, like to a power plant that gets to avoid an expensive air scrubber--end up being paid for many times over by others. So that one utility makes a 5% bonus, I spend a few thousand more dollars in health care. It not only doesn't make economic sense, the anti-environmentalists are just suicidal children.

So, the adults in the room need to put aside their squabbles about esoteric details and send the kids to their room without dinner until they can sit down and eat their peas.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice attack, call the person a "nuckle-dragger", then justify it by attributing logic to the author he never claimed to have. The only comment that is even relevant to the original post is the sarcastic "Extinctions are only wrong if they happen to you." Here's something for you to think about: if you had a child that was dying of cancer, how much would you be willing to pay to save them? Do you pay that much to save children dying in Africa or Asia?

What?! You don't?!

Apparently death is only a bad thing when it affects you; why are extinctions any different? And don't give me the old "the species might have the key to some life-saving drug" argument, the random strangers dying in some far-off corner of the world is just as likely to come up with some life-saving drug as some plant or bug, yet you are willing to lose the former and not the latter.

The "convenient logic" statement you made applies much better to your post than the original posters.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in the long term and maybe not so long term, knowing the consequences of your actions is smart.

And damn near impossible when it comes to a system as complex as even the ecosystem of an area as small as a county.

Which is why all the more caution must be exercised when doing something significant to not disrupt the balance inherent in the system to the point where the system collapses.

Examples of significant actions include any form of large-scale ecological disruption, from killing off a species considered a "nuisance" to deforestation for the purposes of surburanizing a particular area. Most human encroachment upon wildlife is destructive. That isn't to say that it is impossible for humans to enter an area without destroying or scarring it, but that because it usually requires a lot of time and even more money, coupled with general human apathy towards everything, no one bothers in the end. It's particularly bad in the US because of the culture of waste that has recently (over the past 50 years) surfaced, but has been present since the nation's inception.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[dasdrewid]

That's a stupid argument.

Let's say we kill off a major species of plankton. Who cares? It's just plankton... It's not like we eat it or anything... Then, ten years later, we realize that that was a major food source for a major eating fish for us. Woops... The problem is, things in the ecoSYSTEM work together, as a...system. We kill off one thing, it has consequences on others, often times that we don't see ahead of time. We're very bad about that. Allowing ourselves to willy-nilly kill off species is going to cause massive problems for us. Maybe not tomorrow, but give it 10 years and it could cause some serious shit.

Yes, stuff dies out and goes extinct. Eventually we will, too. To think anything different is pretty fucking arrogant. But to think we can start changing things and killing stuff off and not expect something bad to happen to us as a consequence is just stupid.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[entrigant]

I don't get it, how is this going to convince the parent to not "blithely dismiss extinction"? Cleverly worded analogies might placate the common folk, but anyone with the tiniest amount of ability to reason will notice quite quickly that you used a lot of words to say nothing of importance. You may be right, but how does that analogy help prove your point? People blindly accepting baseless analogies as explanations because they sound good is the root of many problems in our society. Please back your case up.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your point! Extinction of the tick would be very positive. Oh wait. What was your point?

Oh yeah, that the results of extinction cannot be accurately predicted, and therefore it's pointless to concern ourselves with worry or debate about it.

Re:I don't see the problem with extinctions.

[Vitriol Angst]

You are better at the whole point here.

We don't make the world better, if it could--possibly, inflict damage on profit margins.

Kind of reverse of the priorities we should have.

My son is getting Asthma, as are about 30% of children in the USA. But there is no alarm, no-multibillion dollar search for the cause. Everytime there are some constitutional rights to get rid of, "it's for the children". I just hope our kids are healthy enough to enjoy all the corruption we are trying to protect them from.

Flowers? California?

[FLOOBYDUST]

Hey man, like does that mean the flower children are back at Haite-Ashbury? can i like get one for my hair ? groovy... Cause i like got to get back to the garden....

Re:Flowers? California?

[OneSmartFellow]

You are stardust, you are golden.

Re:Flowers? California?

[OneSmartFellow]

Oops, forgot, that song is about attending Woodstock, and therfore has nothing to do with California.

quincunx AND the Turing test

[Senor_Programmer]

Now you know why Turing requires a "telepathy proof room", for his test.

News Update

[PerfectSmurf]

The state of California has mounted a campaign to eradicate the Mount Diablo buckwheat, a flower recently rediscovered after being thought extinct for decades. Lab tests on the flower indicate that it causes cancer in the state of California.

In related news, while trying to rejuvenate his image Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to "Terminate" the cancer causing flower. Later that same day famed California channeler and psychic Lorraine Howard held a news conference during which she channeled the flower and responded to the governor in devilish voice saying, "I'll be back."

Re:News Update

[operagost]

You must be kidding! This is California. Most likely, environmentalists would displace all residents within 100 miles of a buckwheat plant and raze their homes to make sure it isn't threatened. Next, they'll lobby for a "Mount Diablo Buckwheat Awareness Week" and "Mount Diablo Sensitivity Training" in all grade schools and corporations.

Re:Whoa!

[kfg]

I'd say thats a bigger discovery.. a fly that looks like a bee!

A bit late for that:

Bee Fly

You can tell it looks like a bee because it's fat and fuzzy, unlike the insect in the flower picture, but here's one that looks like a wasp:

Wasp Fly

Sorry, but science has already been there and done that.

KFG

Re:Whoa!

[Letaals]

Actually some flys look like this, so they can scare birds and other attackers. For us, humans, it does not look like a bee or a wasp.

Slashdot

[LNN]

News for botanics. Stuff that smells good.

Sightings in CA?

[sjsoko]

Eriogonom truncatum has left the building

It was extinct

[noisymime]

...but it got better

Re:It was extinct

[bmalia]

It feels happy... It feels happy.

Creationism Argument Born

[gadlaw]

I can just see the wheels turning in the mind of Creationists about this. The flower previously believed to be extinct as well as the recent story of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker which had been thought to be extinct for some fifty years will now be used as evidence of creationism over evolution. After all, those creatures were gone weren't they? Indeed, they will argue, man does not know everything and this is evidence of god's hand in ways that are incomprehensible to science. Or something like that. I'm sure the creationist line about this will be more mind befuddling - but interesting and entertaining.

Listen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen... (Shhhhh) To what the flower people say!

Finally! A name everyone can be upset about!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has Diablo and buckwheat in the name! The right will petition to have it renamed "Heavenly Buckwheat", and the left will petition to have it renamed "Mount Diablo Disadvantaged Minority Youth Flower".

Re: Extinct Wildflower Found In California

[john.wingfield]

Extinct practice of electing actors to be politicians found in California.

Grad student reported "It tasted delicious"

[elrous0]

Damn grad students!

-Eric

For one moment...

[dark-br]

"When I took people out to see it, they just walked right by it," Park said. "They couldn't grok that the thing could be so small and dainty." ... I got myself thinking that line one some *other* situation... kinda embarrassing.

Re:Whoa!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a fly. It looks like a bee to have its natural predators think it's a bee, and thus leave it alone. And it seems to work pretty well...

Should have killed it

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he didn't kill it, now it will own the whole damn mountain, they'll block off all the trails just to protect it and any cousins it might or might not have there.

In related news...

[milkmood]

A thought to be extinct dodo bird was spotted less than a mile away from the sighting of the Mount Diablo Buckwheat. The crazy bird was followed to the area where the rare wildflower was seen, and inadvertantly trampled it. In a further attempt to escape its tracker, the dodo ran out into a highway and was flattened by a semi-truck bound for San Bernadino.

Now its extinct...

[peu]

when the guy ripped it away, and sent it to grandma who loves pink flowers...

Of course...

[jav1231]

Now the entire area will be blocked off and set aside as a sanctuary.
Evoflunky: "This is the ONLY place on Earth where this flower is known to exist!"
Bystander: "Yes, but just yesterday you thought it was extinct. Why effect all of these people and businesses when it may very well exist elsewhere."
Evoflunky: "Tell you what, you find it somewhere else and we can open this area back up! See you in, oh 70 years. Next question?"
I feel a "Troll" mod coming...wait for it...wait for it!

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already a state park, dumbass.

keyboard plaque

[operationRedPeace]

The bacteria in my keyboard plaque was thought to be extinct when my girlfriend wiped it down with chemical cleaners against my will. However, continued discoloration amoungst the keys shows definate proof that the fingerous bacteria is still hanging on and could possibly even be around in the year 2050.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

FUNNY!

We were right all along....

[codefungus]

First the activist scientists said the woodpecker was extinct. But then someone discovered it was a lie. Now the activist scientists say that flowers were extinct, and here this young fella found some.

When will activist people stop believing the activist scientist and judges understand that the oil business stops terrorists through its expanded strategerically sound methods?

AAAHH is that a C or an E? mf

Jeez

PS: WTF is this "prove you are a human" sh1t? Why can't we make the robots prove they are capable of posting slashdot quality comments??

Maybe it WAS extinct....

[Anonymous Coward]

... some other species of buckwheat EVOLVED into this recently.

Can you grok this?

[lcsjk]

Last fall, during my backpacking through the area, I groked at some of the wild things growing there. I dropped a packet of seeds I had taken along as part of my "back to nature" diet, but I could not see them. I just could not grok that they had gone missing. Now that I see these newly discovered weed flowers, I just can't grok that they might be from the birdseed in my diet. What a grokking thought! as I was hurrying to get away from those pesky "Yellojacket-like" stinging flies.

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I found a lost £1 coin in a pocket of a pair of jeans I'd lost ten years ago. Film at 11.

rockin! last time I saw that pink dude it was ...

[downsize]

uh, 40 years before I was born?

still cool, I think I'll twist one up and take a drive up there, snap off some photos (you know where I'll post them)

I Hear They're Making A Movie Of This...

[ubuntu]

Here's the trailer for the upcoming flick "The Flower Of Mount Diablo: Return of the Eriogonom Truncatum" (okay okay it's a working title):

In a forbidden land... on the flank of Mount Diablo... a student... makes a discovery that will change the course of history....

A flower... missing.... for seventy years....

(*cue techno music and explosions, Brad Pitt as the flower-finding nerd*)

A girl... lost in the city... searching for the truth...

(*Scarlett Johansson, carrying a puppy, running down dark twisted alleys from large men in business suits*)

A madman... who will stop at nothing to get the treasure...

(*Anthony Hopkins with an eyepatch as the evil Doctor Muramasa, laughing maniacally*)

A flower... who just wants to be left alone....

Look man, I had to do *something*! It's a story about a friggin' flower, for god's sakes!

Re:I Hear They're Making A Movie Of This...

[eggie5]

that was beautiful...

Re:I Hear They're Making A Movie Of This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the torrent?

It gets even more complicated

[CiXeL]

They've had plant turn up that were extinct for eons after turning over swampland to build a building where the seeds were sitting preseved in a peat bog.

There is a pretty famous case of this where there were seeds in a canoe found in a peat bog and they were able to recover a 1000 year old extinct lotus from.

What i dislike is when environmentalists say something is extinct but what they really mean is that its regionally extinct which to me is alot less worrysome also because it doesnt meantion how large the region is. I mean monarch butterflies are regionally extinct from my desk but not from the greater environment around the building.

I really wonder how many blue butterflies (that all look the same) in california are considered endangered? it seems like theres a different one for every piece of the coastline.

Offtopic but pretty interesting, there are so many levels to nature and many things just need the right environmental conditions to make their debut. There is a fungus that lives beneath the soil in oregon, one of the largest living organisms but it only lives the subterranean part of its lifecycle. If the climate were to warm up in oregon, oregon would erupt with mushrooms.

Who cares...

[TheStupidOne]

Come back to me when someone's figured out if you can smoke it.

Re:Who cares...

[kurzweilfreak]

All about living up to that UID for this one...

And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sasquatch has been found to be living in San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf as an entertainer.

You can't PROVE a negative...

[NotQuiteReal]

We all know you can't prove a negative, therefore, you can't prove anything is extinct.

I think alien picnickers had the wildflower seeds their sandwich rolls, and lost some.

I also have it on good authority, for example, that the genetic material for dinosaurs is safe and sound on the mothership. Lets hope the next picnic doesn't involve escaped raptors that were meant for the BBQ!

Prove this isn't so.

You don't "see" it, but it's coming up behind you

[ianscot]

It would only concern me if key species that humans depend on were dying out.

Please give us an example of a past mass extinction in which the dominant species on earth continued to be so after the extinction occurred. You can define "dominant" fairly loosely and still not find such an event in world history. (If you'd like to get as far as "sharks and turtles are the dominant forms of life on earth," or "bacteria rule the earth," then I guess you'll find this looming new mass extinction reassuring...)

The completely obvious point that heads-in-the-sand "it doesn't concern me" types refuse to hear, despite every environmentalist for the last 30 years making it, is that there is a massive danger to human beings in a drastic reduction of biodiversity. It threatens us, as a species.

Earth will come through it. Earth has sustained life at much higher temperatures than at present, for example. That doesn't mean global warming wouldn't radically destabilize human civilization. It's a question of whether we would live through those changes. It's self-interest.

Oorrrrr...

[msbmsb]

Maybe it could simply be that they were never really extinct in the first place, just very rare and lost? Your example in your post where you attempt in a very bad way to bash creationism makes just as much sense as the babble a few posts up about these being different entities that evolved to look exactly like the other flowers/birds.

Both are statements from people who don't know what they're talking about but like to push an agenda even if it doesn't make sense. Except here on reactionary slashdot, any crazy idea will get modded up as long as it has the word "evolution" in it.

End of the world

[Bender0x7D1]

I don't mean to be alarmist but does this seem like the dead are coming back to life? First an extinct woodpecker is found alive, now a wildflower? What's next? A bunch of "Old West" heroes from Springfield?

I knew the world was in bad shape, but I didn't know it was this bad. Now if I could find where I left my Soul cube, BFG and chainsaw, (gotta love the chainsaw), I'd be all set.

I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with the profession of actor is no less qualified than one with any other career to become a politician. We've had farmers, writers, soldiers, business owners, merchants, the works. Some were good, some were bad. Their career paths had nothing to do with it.

I bet if Reagan and Arnie had been Democrats, you wouldn't have a problem with them being actors.

The headline is right

[rumblin'rabbit]

No, it's extinct

And delicious (burp).

Call for Plant Geeks

[pfafrich]

If there are any Geeks out there intrested in all things plant like and informatics then they might be intrested in the permaculture.info project. Were hoping to build a community driven online database of plants and their relationships, together with a host of related information and features. Theres been quite a lot of interesting ideas floating around with visual representation of data, distributed events and link systems. Theres a good few chalanges ahead especially in the relms of knowledege representation. Email me or see the website for details.

Almost not quite happened to me too.

[sherpajohn]

When I was a student studying Fish and Wildlfe Management, I had a summer job with the local Conservation Authority. One of my tasks was to perform a bio-inventory of a wetland they owned. One day I found a plant which was listed as rare in Ontario. I actually phoned the people who were responsible for maintaining the list, only to be told it was now upgraded to common. Seems they had been doing a lot of surveys of wetlands recently and were finding this plant more often than they expected. It was this lovely little orchid: http://cedarcreek.umn.edu/plants/newslides/11899.j pg (Ramshead Ladyslipper - Cypripedium arietinum).

Now, I am a major geek, well sort of...but I have a strong love of nature, and I do not find the two conflicting, in fact I like to call myself a technopagan - although I really only fit in with the last line as it is defined here on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopaganism

Earth is a Huge place

[Beefslaya]

Recently, an actual Wolverine was found in Michigan. Scientists for years said that the Wolverine wasn't native, and was considered extinct in Michigan (except for the Ann Arbor variety).

Scientists and Environmentalists tend see other species as finite and place their "rules" on the creatures exsistence, and habitats. It's almost like the forget about the Darwin factor, that the planet is always changing and it's species will accomodate.

Why the guilty feeling when a species becomes extinct? Did this flower play such a unique roll in the ecosystem? One so unique that no other flower can do what it does?

Wildlife management is quite the lucritave business. I don't think we should be playing God when it comes to preserving a species.

Protect some of their habitat, and let them decide their exsistence.

Another fine example of humans intervening is with the Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Every night May-October, people walk the beaches and raid nests to collect eggs, raise them in captivity, and release them in the ocean. What about the gene pool? Only the strongest survive. That's the planet's way to control disease and bad genes, by the weak dying off or getting eaten.

Set up the preserves, and let the plants and animals figure it out. Species that acclimate to human existance will work it out, others will die off, others will live in Wildlife Refuges...quit messing with nature.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

extinct wildflowers find you.

Planet Ark

[climb_no_fear]

Are there any plans to submit seeds for preservation?

Planet Ark

Obligatory WoW comment

[Youssef Adnan]

And how his herbalism skill has reached 298 points.

ivory-billed woodpecker was rediscovered too

[karvind]

Few weeks ago Cornell orinthologists rediscovered ivory-billed woodpecker in Big Woods of Arkansas. It was believed to be extinct as well. More than 60 years after the last confirmed sighting of the species in the United States they found at least one male ivory-bill still survives in vast areas of bottomland swamp forest.

Story here

Noxious Weed?

[Jerrry]

Living as I do at the base of Mt. Diablo, I hope this discovery doesn't result in a stupid knee-jerk reaction such as banning hiking and mt. biking on the mountain (which is a state park) in order to "preserve" this weed.

MOSTLY extinct

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much! It just so happens that this flower here is only MOSTLY extinct. There's a big difference between mostly extinct and all extinct. Mostly extinct is slightly alive. With all extinct, well, with all extinct there's usually only one thing you can do: go through its genome and look for spare genes.

Extinct: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

(With apologies to gowen.)

Ummm

[Zebra_X]

Extinct Wildflower Found In California

Not exitinct now is it?

Re:You don't "see" it, but it's coming up behind y

[Colin Smith]

"Please give us an example of a past mass extinction in which the dominant species on earth continued to be so after the extinction occurred."

Your premise is weak. Give me an example of a past life form on earth which was conscious and able to manipulate it's environment to the extent that we can.

This just in! Vast oil reserve found

[p51d007]

Wanna bet that someone will discover oil under this stupid flower? And, it will be the largest discovery of oil known to man. Boy, wouldn't that be a fun fight to watch?

The environmentalists were wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's to untrammeled oil exploration in Alaska and deforestation of Brazil. All the facile talk of species extinction is really overblown, as this example proves. Here's to Cheney energy policy!

This flower may have no legal protection

[jestill]

This flower is among a number of animals that have been 'rediscovered' from extinction in the past few weeks. The funny thing is that if they are legally declared extinct under the endangered species act, they hae no protection under the act.

Wait a minute, where was it found?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mount Diablo buckwheat....rediscovered on the flanks of Mount Diablo.

Those names sure seem familar. Wounder why no one thought to look there for so long.

Self-defeating discovery

[lildogie]

Two days after the location of the thought-to-be-extinct flower was announced, all specimens were trampled to death by vacationing city dwellers.

Don't be so sure...

[DaveJay]

Don't be so sure this is actually the once-thought-extinct flower they say it is, because fact-checking doesn't seem to be this article-writer's strong point: notice that the caption on the picture of what is clearly a bee sitting on the flower says that it is "a fly".

Of course, that may be the rare and once-thought-extinct beefly, who mimicks bees the same way a viceroy butterfly mimics monarch butterflies...

I have rediscovered the beefly! Hooray for me!

Re:Don't be so sure...

[LMariachi]

What was it you were saying about fact-checking?

Nooooo!

[3TimeLoser]

Don't touch it! It's the Devil weed, I tell you.

Just look where it grows...

Monsanto

[ACNiel]

Monsanto might already have a patent on that seed, and almost definitely on backing up seeds.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

but does it run linux?

Already Covered

[Red Rocket]

Come on all you natural philosphers. What do you say?

The best words on this issue have already been spoken. Charles Williams Beebe says:

"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived though its first material expression be destroyed. A vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer, but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and earth must pass before such a one can be again."

Unique Item

[Baby Duck]

But Diablo only drops Buckwheat maybe 1 in 500 times when you kill him.

You fool!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

If you would just RTA, you'd realize that this extinct plant that isn't extinct is "a unique part of our heritage".

Just think of that. Amazing, huh? I know that I, for one, feel my heritage is *much* more complete now.

Hey, I like wildflowers. I'm always glad to find out something isn't extinct, so long as the something isn't a mosquito, or killer bee, or fire ants, all of which could vanish tomorrow and I would dance on their grave. But I also tend not to lose sleep over a lot of this stuff.

At the same time, I do wonder... as these guys tramp across Mt. Diablo looking for extinct species, how many more species are they dooming with those big feet?

Insert self-referential statement here

[abulafia]

No, we don't. We have no obligations to nature. Nature will go right on, evolving species on it's own, at some point something will come along and wipe out the human race and that will be nature too.

And the most likely agent to do so is ourselves, because we, as a species, both have the capacity to alter our environment and also fail to recognize the consequences of doing so.

Grok?!

[64bProphet]

From the article: "They couldn't grok that the thing could be so small and dainty." I can't "grok" that you would ever consider using that word seriously. What is it about some accidemic types that seem to think using Grok makes them sound more intelligent? Personally if someone uses that phrase their credibility goes to something like .001 in my book. It's from science fiction for goodness sake! Makes me wonder if that was a prepared statement...

Slashdotted: Eriogonom Truncatum

[ic0wb0y]

Mt. Diable has been slashdotted. I went there after reading about it here and cars were backed up for miles and access notices were everywhere making the flowers unaccessable. I did a Google search and someone was kind enough to post a mirror for the flowers here: mttp:\\mt.tassahara

New Grass

[imscarr]

... And they found some extinct grass on Catalina Island which is 26 miles off the coast of SoCal.
California Dissanthelium

If U ask me, I have been pulling these weeds out of my lawn for years.

[Grass species long thought extinct found on Catalina
OCRegister (subscription), CA - 5 hours ago ... Jenny McCune, an ecologist with the Catalina Island Conservancy, found the grass - California Dissanthelium - while doing research near the Airport-in-the ... ]

Extinct?

[part_of_you]

How do we know that it was ever extinct? As far as I know, plants can't just appear. It must have never been extinct, making this an even lamer story.

Re:You don't "see" it, but it's coming up behind y

[Anonymous Coward]

native americans?

Berkeley redefines "flies"

[dmccarty]

Their Botany might be great but their Biology Dept. really needs help:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/0 5/images/buckwheat_fly.jpg

What kind of fly is that?!

Time for Condos!

[sycodon]

Sounds like a great place for a condo development. Imagine the thousands of people that could admire this little weed from their balconys.

Please don't Slashdot the flower

[cheesy9999]

It could be the first instance of physically slashdotting something.

My only question...

[Locke2005]

What kind of salad dressing goes well with Eriogonom truncatum?

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Previously extinct flower that was unextinct is now extinct

Today, on the slopes of Mt. Diablo, several of what could only be described as "nerds" with pdas were seen picking the rare flower, muttering something about "Commanders" and "Tacos" whilst arguing about "Firing foxes..."

Hurry Up

[beforewisdom]

Before someone gets a Big Gulp, climbs into his hummer, and crushes the thing

Satanists!

[Anonymous Coward]

God made this flower, so we should call it Mount Kawukum buckwheat instead.

Mount Diablo unusually diverse

[khallow]

Mount Diablo is a small mountain a little south of where the Sacramento River empties into the San Francisco Bay. The article hints at it, but in terms of flora, the Mount Diablo region is very unusual in the variety of plants it has. It mixes plants from the northern coastal mountain ranges with those from southern coastal mountains and has a few alpine meadow holdovers from the last ice age.

Intelligent Backup

[XCDBFPL]

Obviously the being reponsible for Intelligent Design had the foresight to backup this flower. Restore only took 70 years... sounds like where I work.

Oops

[Fringex]

Shouldn't the title read:

Formerly Extinct Wildflower found

Hardly extinct

[dilvish_the_damned]

The flower hasn't been seen for 70 years...

Thats likely becouse no one has bothered to look in that time. No one goes to Fresno either.

In other News

[pegasustonans]

Non-existant building found in imaginary city

Re:You don't "see" it, but it's coming up behind y

[Vitriol Angst]

Gee. Give you an example of another life form on earth that could farm and wear clothes and that went extinct.

Do you have to wait for an example? How about just populations of people?

Easter Island.
Rome (they deforested and created smog burning iron ore out of mines to keep their expansionist war machine going. It is thought that the lead lining of their water pipes lead to widespread retardation and emotional instability--especially in their leaders).
New Zealand. Indigenous people are gone--clear enough?
There are quite a few islands on our side of the atlantic that were wiped out, either by war or disease. When the Spanish invaded the Aztecs, only one in 25 people survived--merely due to not being adapted to European disease like Cholera.

About 90% of the Flu epidemics come from China. Why? Because they fertilize with human waste. The run-off goes into ponds where they raise fish. The birds and pigs that also live on the farms are part of this mini-ecosystem. Suffice to say, that in epidemiology, that if a bacterium, pest or virus has another ecosystem to rely on, then the transmission vehicle (like people) are cannon fodder. Another example is Malaria that wipes out millions, because its environment is Misquitoes--which are undamaged by it.

There have been a few books on this subject of humans wiping themselves out because either by Religious doctrine or an out of touch leadership (in fact, it is almost always the case of rulers who are separated from the plight of the people, that you find the biggest issues of environmental disaster). I don't really have the time to look them all up. Suffice to say, that if you want, you can find a lot of examples of whole societies and races of people vanishing due to either over-exploiting their environment or to transforming their natural environment too quickly, thus producing crossover diseases (like avian flu).

So, either we listen to a few whiney Environmentalists and tree huggers and spend about 1% of GDP on pollution regulation and things like the CDC. Use conservation and education to compete in the global marketplace. Winner--everyone.

Or we do it the NeoCon way. Let the dice fall where they may. Spend 10% of GDP to dominate and bomb other countries and take their resources. Support tyrants around the world so that they can give contracts to US companys to clear cut forests for hamburgers. Risks; nuclear armageddon or eco-failure. Upside; A few people get 10 mile-long yachts instead of merely 300 ft yachts.

Soon, you won't get propaganda about there being "no global warming". You will get propaganda about the "benefits of global warming". Just wait. A few purchased scientists to spread FUD are not going to be able to cover up a cascading ice field in Antarctica.

Gee. I think I'll side with the more "conservative" approach and not risk destroying the planet.

Grad Student??

[eestar]

That has got to be nice, your Phd thesis depends on you going on hikes in California. I guess that's only a little better than hacking at code 10 hours a day.

amusing

[dogod]

Nature having backups. Made me laugh; thanks
Nothing like a little redundancy.

Fireballs

[JakeD409]

I wonder if eating it will let me spit bouncing fireballs?

Actually

[RockModeNick]

We've already really done a number on most of the fish species we eat, just through the magic of the government subsidizing fishing and keeping fishermen in business when the number of fish in the water would have long made in unprofitable.