March 20, 2016
I’m just back from a 10-day research trip to Oklahoma. I’ll have more pictures to post soon, of all kinds of cool things. One of the most surprising and interesting things I discovered on the trip was Proboscidea – not the mammalian order of elephants and their relatives, but the genus of plants with wacky seed pods native to the Americas.
I say I “discovered” Proboscidea, but all I mean by that is that I became aware of their existence – a personal discovery rather than a scientific one. People have known about them for a long time, and indeed Native Americans have been using the plants and even semi-domesticating them for millennia. The plants have several common names, including “ram’s horn” and “unicorn plant”, but they appear to be most commonly referred to as “devil’s claws”, and that is the name they’re known by in the Oklahoma panhandle.
The weird horns on the seed pods are adapted to snag on the limbs of passing critters, especially large ungulates, and cling there. As the animals wander around, they spread the seeds by either shaking them out of the pods or crushing the pods underfoot. Either mechanism works – the seeds and the pods they grow in are both incredibly tough, and a lot of gardeners find that the seeds don’t germinate well unless they’ve been scarified or even cracked open like sunflower seeds. Or so the internet tells me. I don’t have any direct experience of growing Proboscidea yet, but from pods too damaged to make good souvenirs I collected a couple dozen seeds, which I will attempt to germinate later this spring.
I accidentally got some personal experience with their typical mode of dispersal. I collected a double handful of undamaged seed pods and passed most of them out to students on our field trip, saving only a couple back for myself. I put those two in the back seat of Rich Cifelli’s truck, on top of my coat. By dinnertime it was dark and I’d forgotten about them when I reached into the back seat to grab my coat. As I walked toward the camp, I felt something dragging on my pant leg – it was the two devil’s claws, which had gotten tangled with each other and with me when they’d fallen out of the truck. I’d stepped on one and cracked the tip off of one of its horns, but the other pod, shown here, was completely undamaged. The seed pods are essentially made of springy wood and it takes a lot to damage them. This one rode home in my carry-on luggage, with the horns held at a 90-degree angle to the pod by a stack of books.
One final point – I assumed that the genus name Proboscidea referred to the obvious similarity of the dried seed pods’ horns to the tusks of mammoths. But some of the online sources I’ve seen suggest that the name relates to the proboscis shape of the green, unsplit pods. I’ll try to track down the original description to find out which interpretation is correct, but whatever the answer, it’s pretty interesting that the same part of the same plant can at different stages of development look like either an elephant’s trunk or its tusks.
If you’d like to read more about Proboscidea, the most complete source I’ve found online is this page by Wayne Armstrong at Palomar College – in particular check out the photos of green seed pods that have not yet split open, which looks like fat green beans. There’s more useful information on this page and in the comments on this one. If anyone knows of better sources, or has personal experience growing devil’s claws, please let me know in the comments.
November 1, 2012
One of our anatomy students this year, Tess MacFife, was inspired by the other Dr. Wedel’s skull lecture and produced this excellent anatomy-inspired jack-o-lantern:
Random passers-by probably thought this was some kind of bat/demon/Lovecraftian horror, but those in the know would recognize it as the human sphenoid bone in anterior view. Tess writes, “Full disclosure, I did print out a template and used toothpicks for the outline.” Here’s her template image, borrowed from here.
Any other anatomy- or paleontology-inspired Halloween geekery this year? Feel free to alert us in the comments. And well done, Tess!
July 20, 2011
This just in, forwarded to the ICZN mailing list by Donat Agosti:
At the Nomenclatur Section Meeting at the International Botanical Congress in Melbourne the decision passed, that e-only publications will be valid as of January 2012. The amendment passed by an overwhelming majority, well beyond the requested 60% yes vote.
This decision is contingent upon the confirmation by the IBC on Saturday July 30.
The language that passed is:
Publication is effected (..) Publication is also effected by electronic distribution of material in Portable Document Format (PDF, see also Rec. 29A.0) in a on online serial journal with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). [no guarantee for the exact language]
An amendment to include 10 hard copies has been turned down.
In short, this means that if you work on plants, you will be able, starting in January, to name new species in electronic-only publications such as PLoS ONE and Palaeontologia Electronica — publications that are becoming increasingly important due to their openness and easy accessibility.
This is great news for botanists.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t do anything (directly) for us zoologists.
Now is the time for the zoological code (ICZN) to follow suit! I’ve argued before — in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, no less — that electronic publication of nomenclatural acts is inevitable, and will be accepted by the taxonomic community with or without the endorsement of the Code: the botanical Code’s whole-hearted endorsement of this reality is further evidence that the ICZN’s current only-paper-counts stance is untenable now that we all live in the Shiny Digital Future.
At the time of writing the ICZN is still considering an amendment to recognise electronic publication. A draft amendment was published for comment in 2008, ultimately appearing in five journals (Zootaxa, African Invertebrates, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Journal of Crustacean Biology). Since then, six subsequent issues of BZN have included discussions of the issue, but so far as I can tell there is still no agreed text of the proposed amendment, let alone an actual change in the code. Since everyone else accepts electronic publication, the ICZN is in danger of making itself look anachonistic or even irrelevant. That would be a disaster for zoology: our discipline needs an accepted, respected, relevant code.
The ICZN must move now!
Update (9pm, the same day)
The story is covered by Nature, in a well written article by Daniel Cressey. Key quote: “Now the pressure is on zoologists to catch up with their botanical brethren”.