Saxifrage is one of my favourite subjects for macro photography and I often noticed the same glandular appendages in plants here in W.EU as well. They’re sparser in number than in your typical insectivorous plant, but have this easily recognisable elongated mushroom shape.
did Darwin ever define fitness beyond survival? it doesnt seem to have any predictive power if you have to see what dies and survives before you can say if theyre fit or not
there are plants that may be classified as alpine liveing in certain relativly low spots that escaped bieng glaciated such as pockets in the Cape Breton highlands(max 1200' asl),and preserve species that thrived in much colder, dryer conditions, and who's closest relatives are found thousands of miles away in mountainous regions.
Not sure what Darwin would have to say, though he was exceptionaly concervative and precise in detailing and defing his scientific concepts, and prefered multiple proofs of his ideas and was carefull to concider and include all possible counter arguments and deal with them upfront.
Reading 'the voyage of the beagle' gives another side of his personality, less constrained by the needs of scientific rigor.
I thought a "prediction" was something about the future. But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous. As it is the title makes you think the plant turned carnivorous since Darwin made his prediction; and make you think Darwin said "This plant will soon become carnivore". But what happened is that his statement has been confirmed, not that the plant changed.
When I read the first part of Origin of Species, Darwin made predictions where, I thought, "oh, that's just genetics and DNA." (Of course, he didn't know at the time.)
In addition to your example, there has been a pretty continuous supply of "predictions" that Einstein made that later proved correct when experiments were run.
Darwin probably didn’t know this exact species but only other species of the same family and predicted that there are/were some members of the family that are carnivorous
Probably. Is a genus with a lot of species from rocky places. There are several native species of "Stone Breakers" in UK, generally with lots of small white flowers, sometimes purple pink or yellow.
That's a fine interpretation but it's not in complete alignment with common usage and understanding of these terms. You can define terms however you like to draw whatever conclusion you like. But they won't last long outside of a vacuum.
Yes, it is in complete alignment, and I didn't define anything, the dictionary (based on usage) does. People who use "predict" instead of "speculate" are using the wrong word.
It is in fact correct. The correct word in re some fact claim is "speculate" or "conjecture". We predict that future observation will confirm the speculation. Tense matters.
reply
>In 1875, Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects. However, there has been a lack of conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.
Can you clarify how you got "But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous" out of that? Because it sounds like Darwin observed that there existed this feature on the plants that appeared adapted to carnivorous behavior, but didn't actually observe it in action (and of course he didn't have isotopic tracking to provide hard proof of molecular absorption either). So it was a hypothesis based on feature observation, and now someone has gotten around to proving that as fact via experiment. Not something radically new in terms of technique sure, could have been proved long ago in principle (this sort of tracking was core to what settled the original DNA/protein genetics debates), but still fun to read about and nice to see more getting learned about the species in our world.
Something else to think about, if some potentiating invention would have taken place a few decades earlier, it would have been quite likely that by 1875 there would have been effective isotope analyses available.
Also the further back you go into the 19th century, the more likely it is that the potentiating invention would be completely unrelated to nuclear chemistry.
Regardless, that same potentiating invention (whatever it is) is surely responsible by now for a whole lot more things other than nuclear science.
Can't edit any more, but I guess you do have to consider there are more people who could not possibly imagine that someone as imaginative as Einstein could have ever been born any earlier, compared to those who figure that equal levels of genius had to have appeared occasionally going back for many millennia since the dawn of modern man.
Prediction is an appropriate word to use when you are stating something you believe to be true about something unknown.
'The sun will rise tomorrow' is a pretty weak prediction, but we don't truly know that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we can be pretty sure it will based on probability, history, likelihood, from our own past observations. You wouldn't need much convincing to believe the prediction.
'The sun will not rise tomorrow' is a much stronger prediction, because it's a 'wilder' less believable claim with very huge impact. Nobody would believe the statement without proof.
A hypothesis, is a testable statement about a predicted outcome. You could hypothesize something like: 'The Earth's core will stop due to XYZ event, which will stop Earth's rotation. The sun will not rise tomorrow.' Then you go about designing experiments (or you observe and show something that is measurable, like some asteroid on a path close to Earth's) to prove the statement.
From the article: 'Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects'.
'Posited' is to suggest, assume, or put forward an idea, theory, or fact as a foundational basis for an argument or investigation. 'Posited' isn't quite as strong as the word prediction, it's more like a sensible suggestion for further study. Darwin had observed carnivorous behavior in other plants with sticky hairs, and suggested the behavior may be observed in another plant as well.
He didn't make a strong claim like: 'The genus Saxifraga plants are carnivorous because they have sticky hairs that trap insects.' This sort of claim suggests that plants with sticky hairs always trap insects for nutrients, and frankly, he couldn't know that's true without observing every plant with sticky hairs.
What if there are plants with sticky hairs that use the stickiness as a defensive measure instead?
Should the article have used a different word than 'predicted'? Probably, but it wouldn't attract as many viewers, and 'predicted' sort of lends Darwin deserved credibility.
Tense matters, but I disagree with your word choices about conjecture and speculation. I'm not sure what point you were driving at by mentioning tense, so I'll speak to the word choice.
Speculation suggests light curious or idle review, something that doesn't seem serious enough for Darwin or the Scientific Method. Conjecture seems more appropriate for Math, and out of place for the discussion, since it suggests guesswork to arrive at a conclusion.
Darwin had strong evidence to suggest the plant was carnivorous, no claim other than past observation to fuel the belief in the claim.
However, the same logic does not apply in all cases: someone spotting the wings of a new animal might assume it flies, and we know that isn't the truth. So there is nuance in the words chosen, and why they were chosen. Speculation and conjecture miss the mark to me as much as 'predict' does.
Seems the prediction was not that the plants would somehow evolve to become carnivorous, but that the humans would later categorize them as carnivorous?
So predicting human activity rather than future evolution.
As siblings have said, Prediction is not only about the future. For examples, see ML frameworks (sklearn comes to mind) where the inference method after training a classifier is called ‘predict.’
In science, a ‘prediction’ has special status because it can lend credence to a hypothesis if its implications (predictions) are borne out.
If it’s about the future, the precise verb is ‘forecast.’
I think the traditional scientific use is still future-oriented. The hypothesis-as-prediction is a forecast about the result of an implied, future test.
I'd argue that stats/probability folks pervert "prediction" by using it in contexts of mere information masking, stripping away the tense. There are many better words for this: speculate, extrapolate, estimate, infer, ...
I think in normal English of the public at large and lay people, "predict" and "forecast" have nearly the same meaning as speculation about a future outcome. The main difference is that we "predict" discrete outcomes while we "forecast" statistical outcomes.
I remember when "Your Inner Fish" was popular 15-ish years ago, I was introduced to the idea of evolutionary prediction. Something like tiktaalik fossils were hypothesized to exist, with certain features, in a particular part of northern Canada, in rocks of a certain age, etc.
> I thought a "prediction" was something about the future
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the thing predicted itself belongs to the future. Historical linguists predicted the existence of ancient languages with specific features (glottals) and then found one.
"resident bears have been known to carry over 6,200 kg of salmon from the rivers to the woods, eating two thirds of the protein and leaving behind nearly 2,000 kg of salmon remains. Bears play a critical role in transporting nutrients from freshwater to the terrestrial environment, spreading the food source to other species and the forest floor. Decaying salmon carcasses are distributed everywhere post spawning, allowing nutrient rich soil to provide for the dense plant life of the rainforest"
This is really interesting, but they're not carnivorous. The decaying salmon deposit nutrients in the soil. Carnivorous plants actually digest the insects directly for nutrients, usually because the soil is inhospitable.
I got really excited for a carnivorous salmon-fishing tree there for a second. I could envision how roots might evolve to jut into the water, and develop some one-way geometry that fish get trapped in.
It depends on how much you look into the forest floor. Many trees in a mature forest actively poison the soil to reduce competition for nutrients. Look at a pacific coastal rain forest (or Star Wars' Endor) and you see big trees and an open forest floor. The big trees do not allow smaller/medium trees to get going.(Some of this is lack of sunlight, but also soil PH.) So a salmon-dependent tree could adapt to prevent other plants from getting ahold of salmon nutrients.
Similar to the nitrogen from salmon on the coasts, I have read about plants getting calcium from deer/elk/moose antlers. You would think it wasn't much but then you realize how depleted a forest can be that migrating deer herds become a significant source of calcium movement.
Something is "carnivorous" if it directly consumes the flesh (or other parts) of an animal - usually a living one that it kills (as we have a different name for those that consume only already dead animals - necrophages).
Feeding on nutrients from an animal that died and was then broken down by other beings into base elements in the same area as your roots doesn't qualify these trees in any way as either "carnivorous" nor even "necrophage". Carnivorous plants are those that trap and kill animals that they then directly digest, such as a venus fly trap. Those don't just benefit from animals dying around them and being consumed by bacteria - they have mechanisms that cause the death of the animal and then secrete substances that directly convert the animal into plant nutrients.
An interesting part of this is that Carnivorous plants belong mainly to two evolutive lineages. To simplify it, a main group is distantly related with Rosmarinus and Olive trees and the other main group is a distant cousin of Pinks and Cacti.
This introduces a totally different group of carnivorous in the order Saxifragales, that includes Blackcurrants, Peonies and Aloe (sometimes people confuse Aloe with a cacti, but Succulents aren't cacti).
So the plants became carnivorous at least three times to adapt to specially hard places, and they need very humid places to do it.
I wonder what Darwin would observe and conclude if he were somehow brought back to Earth today. Particularly around information theory, Dawkins’ memes and selfish genes, and now a seemingly new class of something in AI.
60 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 6.5 ms ] threadhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saxifraga_tridactyli...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saxifraga_tridactyli...
If you browse WP commons for this species, you’ll find a few where dirt is stuck to these glands.
hard not to think its so cool that we have the capability to do stuff like this.
> The mountains are highest in the north where they reach more than 5,000 m
How about no.
For example, we predict that there is gold in X location.
Notably they do.
Best of luck out there.
> A prediction (from Latin prae- 'before' and dictum 'something said')[1] or forecast is a statement about a future event or about future data.
Troll muted.
"We predict that these properties will be found." -- about future events or data.
Trolls are stupid and dishonest losers. The end ... I won't be back.
This is not correct. A prediction is about something unknown — maybe because it is in the future, or maybe because of some other reason.
The headline is well written and clear.
>In 1875, Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects. However, there has been a lack of conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.
Can you clarify how you got "But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous" out of that? Because it sounds like Darwin observed that there existed this feature on the plants that appeared adapted to carnivorous behavior, but didn't actually observe it in action (and of course he didn't have isotopic tracking to provide hard proof of molecular absorption either). So it was a hypothesis based on feature observation, and now someone has gotten around to proving that as fact via experiment. Not something radically new in terms of technique sure, could have been proved long ago in principle (this sort of tracking was core to what settled the original DNA/protein genetics debates), but still fun to read about and nice to see more getting learned about the species in our world.
Also the further back you go into the 19th century, the more likely it is that the potentiating invention would be completely unrelated to nuclear chemistry.
Regardless, that same potentiating invention (whatever it is) is surely responsible by now for a whole lot more things other than nuclear science.
Prediction is an appropriate word to use when you are stating something you believe to be true about something unknown.
'The sun will rise tomorrow' is a pretty weak prediction, but we don't truly know that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we can be pretty sure it will based on probability, history, likelihood, from our own past observations. You wouldn't need much convincing to believe the prediction.
'The sun will not rise tomorrow' is a much stronger prediction, because it's a 'wilder' less believable claim with very huge impact. Nobody would believe the statement without proof.
A hypothesis, is a testable statement about a predicted outcome. You could hypothesize something like: 'The Earth's core will stop due to XYZ event, which will stop Earth's rotation. The sun will not rise tomorrow.' Then you go about designing experiments (or you observe and show something that is measurable, like some asteroid on a path close to Earth's) to prove the statement.
From the article: 'Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects'.
'Posited' is to suggest, assume, or put forward an idea, theory, or fact as a foundational basis for an argument or investigation. 'Posited' isn't quite as strong as the word prediction, it's more like a sensible suggestion for further study. Darwin had observed carnivorous behavior in other plants with sticky hairs, and suggested the behavior may be observed in another plant as well.
He didn't make a strong claim like: 'The genus Saxifraga plants are carnivorous because they have sticky hairs that trap insects.' This sort of claim suggests that plants with sticky hairs always trap insects for nutrients, and frankly, he couldn't know that's true without observing every plant with sticky hairs.
What if there are plants with sticky hairs that use the stickiness as a defensive measure instead?
Should the article have used a different word than 'predicted'? Probably, but it wouldn't attract as many viewers, and 'predicted' sort of lends Darwin deserved credibility.
Speculation suggests light curious or idle review, something that doesn't seem serious enough for Darwin or the Scientific Method. Conjecture seems more appropriate for Math, and out of place for the discussion, since it suggests guesswork to arrive at a conclusion.
Darwin had strong evidence to suggest the plant was carnivorous, no claim other than past observation to fuel the belief in the claim.
However, the same logic does not apply in all cases: someone spotting the wings of a new animal might assume it flies, and we know that isn't the truth. So there is nuance in the words chosen, and why they were chosen. Speculation and conjecture miss the mark to me as much as 'predict' does.
So predicting human activity rather than future evolution.
In science, a ‘prediction’ has special status because it can lend credence to a hypothesis if its implications (predictions) are borne out.
If it’s about the future, the precise verb is ‘forecast.’
I'd argue that stats/probability folks pervert "prediction" by using it in contexts of mere information masking, stripping away the tense. There are many better words for this: speculate, extrapolate, estimate, infer, ...
I think in normal English of the public at large and lay people, "predict" and "forecast" have nearly the same meaning as speculation about a future outcome. The main difference is that we "predict" discrete outcomes while we "forecast" statistical outcomes.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the thing predicted itself belongs to the future. Historical linguists predicted the existence of ancient languages with specific features (glottals) and then found one.
They look like pistils.
https://hakaimagazine.com/features/salmon-trees/
"up to 50 percent of the total nitrogen the trees use comes from salmon."
https://pacificwild.org/salmon-feed-forests/
"resident bears have been known to carry over 6,200 kg of salmon from the rivers to the woods, eating two thirds of the protein and leaving behind nearly 2,000 kg of salmon remains. Bears play a critical role in transporting nutrients from freshwater to the terrestrial environment, spreading the food source to other species and the forest floor. Decaying salmon carcasses are distributed everywhere post spawning, allowing nutrient rich soil to provide for the dense plant life of the rainforest"
Similar to the nitrogen from salmon on the coasts, I have read about plants getting calcium from deer/elk/moose antlers. You would think it wasn't much but then you realize how depleted a forest can be that migrating deer herds become a significant source of calcium movement.
Feeding on nutrients from an animal that died and was then broken down by other beings into base elements in the same area as your roots doesn't qualify these trees in any way as either "carnivorous" nor even "necrophage". Carnivorous plants are those that trap and kill animals that they then directly digest, such as a venus fly trap. Those don't just benefit from animals dying around them and being consumed by bacteria - they have mechanisms that cause the death of the animal and then secrete substances that directly convert the animal into plant nutrients.
This introduces a totally different group of carnivorous in the order Saxifragales, that includes Blackcurrants, Peonies and Aloe (sometimes people confuse Aloe with a cacti, but Succulents aren't cacti).
So the plants became carnivorous at least three times to adapt to specially hard places, and they need very humid places to do it.