yâknow, when i look at new plants i always like to think of and consider my own first impressions. Philcoxia was a genus iâd heard of in passing in terms of carnivorous plants, but because itâs so rare and iâd never seen it cultivated or talked about extensively in any of the hobbyist things iâve ever attended, i honestly kind of forgot about it until tonight, when i stumbled across it on the (technically incomplete as of right now but eh) âlist of carnivorous plant speciesâ article on wikipedia.Â
the article gave a brief overview, but didnât have any images or in-depth explanation, so i ended up stumbling across the actual paper that first described itâs carnivory (in the species Philcoxia bahiensis) back in 2012. for those curious, a carnivorous plant is only considered carnivorous if it can be proven that itâs using materials (usually nitrogen) from a freshly dead animal or plant to directly influence itâs growth, so usually scientists will put radioisotopes of nitrogen on the parts they suspect to be killing and eating things and check back in a couple days with imaging equipment to see if the plant has absorbed it and moved it around, and if it has, then they have support for potential carnivory. on a related note, a plant is considered âprotocarnivorousâ if it kills things but hasnât started to eat them yet, and these plants are considered to be on the evolutionary path to carnivory.
anyway. so i look at the paper, and in the introduction theyâre describing this typical nitrogen testing process, and theyâre very certain about their resulting data confirming their hypothesis, which surprised me because thereâs usually a lot of hemming and hawing in these papers in recent years over wether or not the plant is Valid or not. i think itâs a matter of low-hanging-fruit; weâve seen all the venus fly traps in the world, and now weâre in the age of finding really, really weird and unexpected ways that other plants are eating stuff, and usually theyâre plants we wouldnât expect, or havenât expected so far in science, and itâs a lot less clear cut what we should and shouldnât technically count. âholy shit,â i think, âthis must be like, a real, traditional-style carnivorous plant. like this isnât beating around the bush hereâ.Â
now until this point, iâd only done a google image search for it, to which i was jarred by the results and thought âno, that canât be itâ, because google images can easily return the wrong plant youâre looking for when you search it. i assumed that was what happened. so i scrolled down, waiting to see what kind of plant could return such a result so certainly.Â
but you see lads, it was true. and as i scrolled down from the paperâs abstract and saw it, real photos of this plant eating nematodes with underground carnivorous leaves in the brazilian desert, and realized that it was really true, for whatever reason my immediate and persisting first impression is and was, âoh my god, itâs a dumbass thot. this plant has dumbass thot energyâ. i cannot shake this very specific impression. lets take a look
these are from the article. you see, much of the plant is buried underground, being carnivorous to nematodes and living itâs life. but lets take a look at what evolution made here, lads. a mature plant uncovered in itâs full glory
titsay
blakekathryn
kaledo-art
origamiaround
kianamaiart
