In article , Malcolm
writes
Hmm, but that's just not true, is it? What about plants that are
dependent upon insects for fertilisation not to mention those which
depend on birds and animals for seed dispersal?

Those plants have developed or evolved that way to make use of animals
etc. which are there now, but were not so previously. That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life, but not vice-versa.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Dave Poole
writes

Back to feelings, I have great difficulty in according plants with
the ability to feel in an emotional way (love, hate etc.) for this
requires quite complex thought processing. Emotion is a consequence
of the need to remain together (as a pairing) or within one's own peer
group for self protection and the successful rearing of young. Its
roots are in baser instincts of the survival of the species and I have
great problems in accepting that such sensations are present in any
other than life forms with a highly organised central nervous systems.

When plants react to circumstances in a defensive or protective way, is
that not an equivalent of fear or wariness in animals? And when they act
in ways which will lead to their procreation, isn't that equivalent to
the mating instinct in animals, known as love (or whatever) in humans?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
I challenge you to design an experiment which would prove that a
plant
has any emotional reactions. The concept is an emergent phenomenon
which can only be described at all in the case of higher animals.

I have quoted one in this thread in a response to Sacha.

You have not. You have quoted a lot of anecdotal rubbish with
exactly zero scientific content.. Not only was the experiment
uncontrolled, it also was not repeated by an independent observer. I
asked for the design of an experiment. which would prove that a plant
has emotional reactions. I did not think it neceaasry to insert the
word "controlled" before "experiment", bur I do so now,
retrospectively. Other "experiments" don't count in this context.

FWIW, I see plants as the highest of beings.

Your definition of "high" in this context clearly differs from mine
and from that of any rational biologist.

Partly because they were
around long before animals, and partly because whereas animals,

There were even more primitive life forms in existence before plants
came on the scene. Why don't you classify them as even higher
life-forms that plants?

including humans, are totally dependent upon plants, plant-life has
no
need of animals - even of gardeners.

Oh dear.
{:-((

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Sacha
writes
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was
cited? Do
you recall?

Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a test
to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:

'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert]

That does not bode well for starters. Lie detectors have been shown
in controlled experiments to be totally unreliable, except insofar as
they intimidate the person being interviewed.

then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of
flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a
prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen.

That is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence obtained fron
controlled experiments and therefore have exactly zero scientific
value.
Is he implying that the leaf had predictive powers?
And in any case, leaves don't have skins whose surface resistivity
behaves like that of humans.

Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have
been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.

That little lot,.I am afraid, can only be described as vintage crap.
It is on a par with the book I read which gave "evidence" that Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross, but was rescued by his close
friends, and after he had recovered from the ordeal, escaped to France
with Mary Magdalen, where they founded the Plantagenet family.

Franz

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:09:39 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

When plants react to circumstances in a defensive or protective way, is
that not an equivalent of fear or wariness in animals?

No, it is purely the result of a stimulus in the same way that
photosynthesis starts to occur when a plant is exposed to light or
that wilting occurs as a result of lack of water.

And when they act
in ways which will lead to their procreation, isn't that equivalent to
the mating instinct in animals, known as love (or whatever) in humans?

Well, for a start, the mating instinct in many humans has nothing to
do with the need to procreate and is more to do with recreational (and
to an extent personal or even selfish) gratification. In some cases
it is accompanied by a deeper emotional sensation, but by no means
always. With the exception of Bonobo chimpanzees and some species of
dolphin, there are few if any indications that other animals act in a
similar way.

Sorry, I think you are way off the mark here. You are projecting
human emotions onto lower animals and then to plants. This is an all
too common human failing that ill-serves the objects of those
emotions. There is no science to prove that plants have 'feelings' or
emotions. All living things seek to multiply, whether they are of a
microbial or higher life form. Procreation is one of the defining
characteristics of living things. Instinct (in animals) and reaction
to stimulus (in plants) is not the same as emotion and it is facile
to make such a comparison.

Nor do plants act in any positive or selective way that leads to their
procreation. They react to stimuli which ultimately leads to
flowering. The stimuli can be day-length, maturation, stress and
temperature amongst many other things. Plants have no choice in the
matter - their purpose is to grow, reproduce and thereby perpetuate
themselves. Nor do they select 'mates'. So long as pollen arriving
upon the stigmas is viable and from a genetically compatible plant
(ie. same or related species) fertilisation will occur.

Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:08:29 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life,

Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
might argue with that.

but not vice-versa.

So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
adverse effects upon those plants then? There are hundreds if not
thousands of plants that have adapted to very specialised pollinators
and if those pollinators disappear, then so do the plants. A widely
known example is the Yucca which flowers prolifically here in the UK,
but cannot set seed since the moths which assist with the flowers'
pollination are not present amongst our fauna and could not exist in
our climate. If those moths disappeared in their native habitat, so
would the Yuccas eventually.

Many valuable tropical species (my favourites the bananas come quickly
to mind, but there are many more) are bat pollinated. Wipe out the
bats (and they are becoming highly endangered in many regions) and the
plants disappear. No, you are wrong, there is a powerful necessity
for co-existence for without one there will not be the other. You
cannot make such sweeping statements that plants can exist without
animals, because ultimately flowering plants are dependent upon animal
life.
Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November

In article , Dave Poole
writes
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:08:29 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life,

Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
might argue with that.

but not vice-versa.

So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
adverse effects upon those plants then?

Not to mention plants which depend on ingestion of insects for the major
part of their nutrition.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sacha
writes
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was
cited? Do
you recall?

Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments
quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a
test
to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or
to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:

'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert]

That does not bode well for starters. Lie detectors have been
shown
in controlled experiments to be totally unreliable, except insofar
as
they intimidate the person being interviewed.

then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of
flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a
dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a
prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen.

That is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence obtained
fron
controlled experiments and therefore have exactly zero scientific
value.
Is he implying that the leaf had predictive powers?
And in any case, leaves don't have skins whose surface resistivity
behaves like that of humans.

Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have
been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it
had.

That little lot,.I am afraid, can only be described as vintage
crap.
It is on a par with the book I read which gave "evidence" that
Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross, but was rescued by his close
friends, and after he had recovered from the ordeal, escaped to
France
with Mary Magdalen,

as portrayed in Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper:-)

where they founded the Plantagenet family.

Not the Plantagenet family, but Merovingian family.

You are right. The Plantagenets are fescendants of the Merovingians,
if I remember correctly.

"There are at least a dozen families in Britain and Europe
today-with
numerous collateral branches who are of Merovingian lineage. These
include the houses of Hapsburg-Lorraine (present titular dukes of
Lorraine and kings of Jerusalem), Plantard, Luxembourg, Montpezat,
Montesquiou, and various others. According to the 'Prieure
documents,'
the Sinclair family in Britain is also allied to the bloodline as
are
various branches of the Stuarts. And the Devonshire family, among
others, would seem to have been privy to the secret. All of these
houses could presumably claim a pedigree from Jesus; and if one man,
at some point in the future, is to be put forward as a new
priest-king, we do not know who he is."


Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code or the Holy Blood and the
Holy
Grail?

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Please tell me who the authot of the Da Vinci Code is. I enjoy that
genre more than sci fi.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Malcolm
writes
Hmm, but that's just not true, is it? What about plants that are
dependent upon insects for fertilisation not to mention those which
depend on birds and animals for seed dispersal?

Those plants have developed or evolved that way to make use of
animals
etc. which are there now, but were not so previously. That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly
dependent
upon plant life, but not vice-versa.

I am afraid your concept of what constitutes an ecosystem consisting
of interacting components id fatally flawed.

Franz

Stephen Howard writes:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

Regards,

--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Alan

--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280

On 16/8/04 19:50, in article , "Alan R Williams"
wrote:

Stephen Howard writes:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:43:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code or the Holy Blood and the
Holy
Grail?

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Please tell me who the authot of the Da Vinci Code is. I enjoy
that
genre more than sci fi.

Dan Brown

For a good laugh?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...591912-6630049

You will love finding all the stupid mistakes :-)

I shall order it.

Franz

On 17/8/04 18:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:54:45 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)

... and is jealous of it's better half?

A fruitless exercise.
--

Sacha

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:43:48 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 12:09, in article ,
"Kay"
wrote:

snip Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does
someone
whose
nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest
of us?
Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and
their
capacity for distress.

I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to
which the
control systems are centralised.

Do you remember there was something written about experiments in
this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something
about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the
plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the
same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction
from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along
those
lines.

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

Just paint yourself green, do your own photosynthesising act and drink
mineral waters.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What on
earth is my ISP doing?
(I bet that surprised you!)

Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.

I like that one.

Franz

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:16:15 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

--
Tim C.

In article , Tim Challenger
writes

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
of meat
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:13:13 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together?
;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What
on
earth is my ISP doing?

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

Franz

On 19/8/04 21:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

It's my turn at the end of this month.

To turn 80?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

Thank you!

The names for the seven things seem to have changed a bit since I
did school certificate biology some 58 years ago.

Peter

In article , Janet Baraclough.
.. writes
The message
from Kay contains these words:

In article , Tim Challenger
writes

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
of meat

Illogical, captain. If humans were made out of vegetables (God knows
he nearly succeeded in many cases) then we'd all be vegetarian and could
still eat each other.

If he was serious, he'd have made us out of
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Janet Baraclough.
.. writes
The message
from Kay contains these words:

In article , Tim Challenger
writes

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
of meat

Illogical, captain. If humans were made out of vegetables (God knows
he nearly succeeded in many cases) then we'd all be vegetarian and could
still eat each other.

Couch potato, anyone?

Careful! It's only the underground bit you can eat - the bit on the
couch is poisonous!
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Kay
writes

If he was serious, he'd have made us out of

How did that get here! ;-)
I obviously shouldn't read my ngs before I'm fully awake
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Helen,

Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings -
some
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
they did. What do you think?

I only discovered this thread today, so I'm a bit late in answering....

O.K. My Anthurium didn't bloom since last autumn. On Monday I bought an
Alocasia sanderiana and showed it to my Anthurium saying: "Look, how
beautiful this plant is! But you, you only produce green leaves over and
over, but no flower. What is wrong with you?"
Believe it or not: a small inflorescence is showing up since Wednesday!

A friend of mine told me that she had a plant which didn't want to bloom,
neither. She shouted at the plant: "If you don't start blooming till the end
of the week, I will throw you away!". Guess what happened? No, she didn't
have to throw it away!

You may say: this was just by chance. But I happened to see things like
these often enough to assume that they are signs of feelings. Fear or
perhaps even jealousy are motives I see in these reactions.

Gaby

--
Mrs. Gaby Chaudry
http://www.gaby.de/bilder/

On 20/8/04 9:17, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:38:51 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 19/8/04 21:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

It's my turn at the end of this month.

To turn 80?

not quite :-)

Well.......let us know when to start the count down!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Following up to Broadback

If it is ever proved that plants have feelings, and can feel pain what
on earth are veggies going to do? :-(

I saw a veggie on TV who would only eat individual leaves from a
plant to avoid killing it!
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

It's my turn at the end of this month.

How old?
Which day?

Franz

On 20/8/04 10:26, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:32:53 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 20/8/04 9:17, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:38:51 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 19/8/04 21:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

It's my turn at the end of this month.

To turn 80?

not quite :-)

Well.......let us know when to start the count down!

in about 15 years.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Following up to Malcolm

I saw a veggie on TV who would only eat individual leaves from a
plant to avoid killing it!

LOL! Presumably that means that no root crops can be eaten. And what
about seeds like rice or pulses. Each one has the potential to be a
plant so how could one eat those, either?

the presenter asked him if it caused him any problems and he
said only that he wife had left him! I cant remember what his
rules on potential life (seeds etc) were, IIRC he had gradually
got more and more extreme, an obsession I suspect rather than a
rational approach to moral eating. Still, its his choice.

Having read all this stuff I keep finding myself looking round
quickly on the allotment and I swear some bindweed tried to trip
me up the other day, its not paranoia, they *are* watching me.
:-)
Perhaps if I get the compost heap consecrated they will be
placated? But I couldn't put flowers on it, could I?
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

This is a very interesting thread, and poses a very intriguing question.

To cut to the chase, IMHO, plans are living and as such have senses in which they employ for their survival. They can physically 'feel' but can't mentally 'feel'.

That is the difference between plants and animals.

In article , Darwins Frog
writes

This is a very interesting thread, and poses a very intriguing
question.

To cut to the chase, IMHO, plans are living and as such have senses in
which they employ for their survival. They can physically 'feel' but
can't mentally 'feel'.

That is the difference between plants and animals.

That sounds about as good a summary of the topic as can be made.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Alan Gould said "..........To cut to the chase, IMHO, plans are living and
as such have senses in which they employ for their survival. They can
physically 'feel' but can't mentally 'feel' ........"


Who's to say that plants don't have a sense, or senses that we know nothing
about.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Alan Gould said "..........To cut to the chase, IMHO, plans are living
and
as such have senses in which they employ for their survival. They can
physically 'feel' but can't mentally 'feel' ........"


Who's to say that plants don't have a sense, or senses that we know
nothing
about.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk


There are certainly times when I reckon they have a highly developed sense
of humour :~)

--
Charlie, gardening in Cornwall.
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs)

Who's to say that plants don't have a sense, or senses that we know
nothing
about.

Sense of humour for example?

Dahlias laugh up their sleeves.
--
Martin



Sorry Martin but Osmacoat is a fertilizer not a plant garment

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"Gaby Chaudry" wrote in message
...
Helen,

Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have
feelings -
some
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they
were sure
they did. What do you think?

I only discovered this thread today, so I'm a bit late in
answering....

O.K. My Anthurium didn't bloom since last autumn. On Monday I bought
an
Alocasia sanderiana and showed it to my Anthurium saying: "Look, how
beautiful this plant is! But you, you only produce green leaves over
and
over, but no flower. What is wrong with you?"
Believe it or not: a small inflorescence is showing up since
Wednesday!

A friend of mine told me that she had a plant which didn't want to
bloom,
neither. She shouted at the plant: "If you don't start blooming till
the end
of the week, I will throw you away!". Guess what happened? No, she
didn't
have to throw it away!

You may say: this was just by chance. But I happened to see things
like
these often enough to assume that they are signs of feelings. Fear
or
perhaps even jealousy are motives I see in these reactions.

Now make a list of all the occasions in which you have spoken to q
plant after which it did not respond.
For each case you quote in which the plant responded, I will quote you
twenty in which the plant did not respond.

Franz

In article , Janet Baraclough.
.. writes

This confirms earlier research, which showed that some urglers are as
intelligent as vegetables.

And that some vegetables are as intelligent as urglers?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these words:


Now make a list of all the occasions in which you have spoken to q
plant after which it did not respond.

For each case you quote in which the plant responded, I will quote
you
twenty in which the plant did not respond.

I fear you have misinterpreted the research results, Franz, and
got it
all back to front.
If plants respond positively to some people, but deliberately
ignore
other people (as your figures suggest) it would appear that plants
behave as intelligently as some urglers.

This confirms earlier research, which showed that some urglers are
as
intelligent as vegetables.

Which rounds off this discussion nicely. {:-))

Franz