On Fri, 23 May 2003 01:29:15 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

I have made the observation that most every plant when it shoots from
its seed
with its first leaves, that these first leaves are rarely (perhaps
never) the same as
what all the other leaves of this plant matures into. Would it not save
the plant
some energy in its early growing if all the leaves were the same from
birth to
maturity?

Anyway, does anyone know if any plant exists wherein its first leaves
are
no different from any other of its leaves?

And the question I am mostly interested in is whether these first leaf
are an
evolutionary vestiges such as human vestiges of gill slits. So are these
first
leaves vestiges of all plants that can be traced back to some ancestral
first
plant. Or, instead of being evolutionary vestiges, are the first leaves
different
from later leaves as in animals the fetus is different from the later
growing
animal.

What I am trying to reconcile in thought is why would a plant invest
energy in
its first leaves of leaves that are very much different from all later
leaves, when
it probably would be better for the plant if all of its leaves during
its entire lifetime were one and the same type of leaf.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the
electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


oh my GAWD....

cotyledon look it up

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
I have made the observation that most every plant when it shoots from
its seed
with its first leaves, that these first leaves are rarely (perhaps
never) the same as
what all the other leaves of this plant matures into. Would it not save
the plant
some energy in its early growing if all the leaves were the same from
birth to
maturity?

Anyway, does anyone know if any plant exists wherein its first leaves
are
no different from any other of its leaves?

And the question I am mostly interested in is whether these first leaf
are an
evolutionary vestiges such as human vestiges of gill slits. So are these
first
leaves vestiges of all plants that can be traced back to some ancestral
first
plant. Or, instead of being evolutionary vestiges, are the first leaves
different
from later leaves as in animals the fetus is different from the later
growing
animal.

What I am trying to reconcile in thought is why would a plant invest
energy in
its first leaves of leaves that are very much different from all later
leaves, when
it probably would be better for the plant if all of its leaves during
its entire lifetime were one and the same type of leaf.

While others omg each other to make themselves feel better about being
jerks, I see that some of your question have still been left
unanswered. One concerns the evolutionary homologies of the
cotyledons, ie. can cotyledon shape be used for phylogenetic
relationships. Unfortunately, the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
pattern found in animals does not apply anywhere near as well in
plants. This is particularly true after the seed is formed, were much
separation of form has alreadt occurred. The cotyledon's shape can be
fairly similar across several species of a genera, but it rarely keeps
this similarity over genera. This is because the duties of the
cotyledon often must be structured to particular environments.
However, the cotyledon's role does have a fairly large evolutionary
history in the vascular plants. It was a necessary adaptation to
support plant growth through to the phase where it can produce enough
food on its own by photosynthesis. In fact, the number of them (1 or
2) separates two major evolutionary forms of the vascular plants, the
monocots and the dicots.

galathaea schreef
In fact, the number of them (1 or 2) separates two major evolutionary
forms of the vascular plants, the monocots and the dicots.

+ + +
And back to the Stone Age we go (again)!
PvR

On Mon, 26 May 2003 06:54:07 GMT, "P van Rijckevorsel"
wrote:

galathaea schreef
In fact, the number of them (1 or 2) separates two major evolutionary
forms of the vascular plants, the monocots and the dicots.

+ + +
And back to the Stone Age we go (again)!
PvR



I am curious as to what you mean by that PvR?

Is it that the concept above is no longer considered correct, or the
fact that trying to tell plutonium something is like starting at the
bottom?

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message .. .
galathaea schreef
In fact, the number of them (1 or 2) separates two major evolutionary
forms of the vascular plants, the monocots and the dicots.

+ + +
And back to the Stone Age we go (again)!
PvR

You are absolutely correct in noting that the distinction is not an
absolute phylogenetic one (which has been noted for some time). There
are certainly plants with two cotyledons which more properly should be
systematically related with the monocots and vice versa. These
relationships underline the true variability of plants, and the fact
that dicots are almost definitely not all derived from a common
ancestor point to the struggle of classification by form (which has
been surpassed by a much more rigorous science with the advent of gene
pattern methods). However, I was merely attempting to point out what
is still a useful classification of form over large classes of
flowering plants. I was, unfortunately, sacrificing rigorousness to
ease of exposition to assist the OP in their sudy of these interesting
parts of the growth cycle, and I do appologize for not properly
qualifying the remark. It is still (I believe!) recognized that the
number of cotyledons is a characteristic very often conserved over
large histories of evolution, but it is now recognized that there is
not merely a single event which has caused this quantity to vary but,
indeed, several and likely in both direction (addition and loss of
cotyledons).

I found my name on Archie's killfile. I feel honored to listed in his Who's
Who!!!

Archie's list is so long, if he keeps on going, he will have the name of
everybody on the internet!!!

Archie isn't just a deranged idiot, he's a pompous fool too!!!


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
...
25 May 2003 21:13:19 -0700 galathaea wrote:
(snipped what I wrote)


While others omg each other to make themselves feel better about being
jerks, I see that some of your question have still been left

Well, my killfile has been greatly effective for the past many years and
you are welcome to copy and use it. I waste none of my time on anything
they write.

http://www.archimedesplutonium.com/M...llfiledom.html


unanswered. One concerns the evolutionary homologies of the
cotyledons, ie. can cotyledon shape be used for phylogenetic
relationships. Unfortunately, the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"

Not exactly sure of what that means, or is trying to convey.

I brought in the subject of animals and vestigial evolutionary form
such as the example of gill slits in humans because it appears that
most first leaves of plants look about the same and are very different
from the later mature leaves of those plants.

So one of my questions was whether these first leaves have some
better energy capture of photosynthesis that later mature leaves lack
in quality of photosynthesis capture. Sort of like the idea that a
beginner
child of bicycle uses trainer wheels before going solo.

So are these cotyledon first leaves superior to later leaves? Or would
any and all plants be better off if there first leaves were noncotyledon
and
were exactly like all the other later mature leaves? If so would suggest
that cotyledon leaves are evolutionary vestiges just as gill slits in
humans are evolutionary vestiges and although they act as the first
photosynthesis of the plant, they are inferior to the photosynthesis
if these first leaves were not cotyledon but rather instead what the
future mature leaves are.

I doubt any scientist has researched whether a cotyledon first leave
is any superior to later leaves. My guess at this time is that they are
inferior in photosynthesis because they are evolutionary remnants
of the gene coding just like gill slits are remnants of nonfunction.

I would guess if there were a means of testing whether a later leaf is
superior in photosynthesis to a cotyledon leaf that such would be the
case. That is a guess. A guessed based on the idea that animals have
remnants that the gene code cannot seem to get rid of and that the
cotyledon first leaves were the aeons ago leaves like gill slits in
humans.

Can you think of a means of testing whether a cotyledon leaf is superior
or inferior in photosynthesis to a later mature leaf? I cannot not at this
moment but I am unfamilar with the literature and methods of botany
to do such a test. Perhaps someone has already found a means of doing
that test.

I have a baby pear true at this very moment coming from seed. It had
a cotyledon first leaves and now it has 2 new leaves of what a pear
leaf really is. So I wonder if a means of testing the photosynthesis
of the cotyledon leaf of pear and then the photosynthesis ability of the
next 2 leaves of that pear is.


pattern found in animals does not apply anywhere near as well in
plants. This is particularly true after the seed is formed, were much
separation of form has alreadt occurred. The cotyledon's shape can be
fairly similar across several species of a genera, but it rarely keeps
this similarity over genera. This is because the duties of the

Yes, my pinenut trees seem to have the same first leaves as later mature
leaves of that pine. But I wonder if any pine or spruce or evergreen has
a cotyledon that looks more like a pear cotyledon than mature pine
leaves. I wonder if we trace all cotyledon leaves of all plants whether
that
track leads to the evolutionary history of the past to common ancestors.

Perhaps the gene coding of all plants of the genetic region that does the
cotyledon maybe a marker of the history of all plant species, that we
can tell which species is ancestral to another.


cotyledon often must be structured to particular environments.

Well if that is the case then it sinks the idea that cotyledon is an
evolutionary remnant. Perhaps a fractional or percentage adaption
because most cotyledons are fairly similar. So that environment has
not played much of a role.


However, the cotyledon's role does have a fairly large evolutionary
history in the vascular plants. It was a necessary adaptation to

You know how blood is often compared between species to find out
if one is ancestral to the other. Perhaps cotyledon variations is a marker
in plants to tell if one is ancestral to another.


support plant growth through to the phase where it can produce enough
food on its own by photosynthesis. In fact, the number of them (1 or

Yes, but that is the important question for me to find out. I want to know
if cotyledon leaves are superior in anyway to later leaves. I would guess
they are inferior because they are evolutionary vestiges like gill slits
in
humans that the gene code could not get rid of totally. I would guess that
if plants could have a choice of their first leaves being cotyledon or
being
what later mature leaves are that all plants would forego the cotyledon
stage and have all of its leaves, the very first ones all be what the
later
mature leaves look like. This guess is based on the presumption that later
leaves of a plant species are its most efficient photosynthethic leaves.
And
that the first leaves of cotyledon are like a dumpsite of ancient genetics
of that plant, just as human embryos get rid of its gill slit during the
embryo
stage.



2) separates two major evolutionary forms of the vascular plants, the
monocots and the dicots.

I bet if all plants had their choice, they would choice having all their
leaves
from their first to their last as all the same and that the cotyledon
stage of
a plant is the getting rid of ancient genetics that are there. I would
need some
reliable experimental method to test whether cotyledon leaves are superior
or
inferior to later leaves. Such a method probably does not exist yet.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The concept has long been obsolete, Buckwheat.

The true situation is much more complex than that.

Its a waste of time trying to explain anything to Archie because he's too
far gone and never listens anyway. Archie always thinks he making some
profound discovery when, in fact, he is always making a total ass of
himself. He never does his own research.

You efforts are better spent doing something constructive rather than trying
to teach the unteachable. Archie is not worth the "hand holding" he craves.


d buebly wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 May 2003 06:54:07 GMT, "P van Rijckevorsel"
wrote:

galathaea schreef
In fact, the number of them (1 or 2) separates two major evolutionary
forms of the vascular plants, the monocots and the dicots.

+ + +
And back to the Stone Age we go (again)!
PvR



I am curious as to what you mean by that PvR?

Is it that the concept above is no longer considered correct, or the
fact that trying to tell plutonium something is like starting at the
bottom?

And back to the Stone Age we go (again)!
PvR

galathaea schreef
There are certainly plants with two cotyledons which more properly should
be systematically related with the monocots and vice versa.

+ + +
IIRC monocots have 0-2 cotyledons and dicots 2-6.
The idea of dicots as a natural group is being abandoned.
It may be that the eudicots do have always two cotyledons, I would have to
check.
+ + +

However, I was merely attempting to point out what is still a useful
classification of form over large classes of flowering plants.

+ + +
There are other more useful characters
PvR