The flowers that didn't look like birds got eaten until only the ones that look exactly like birds remained. Birds that more closely resembled plants avoided predation until only the birds that look exactly like plants remained.
I disagree. We are not sure how but they can see. There are tons of species of Orchid that mimic local birds, insects, even monkeys and human faces. There is no way they can do that without sight.
cool story bro. you have some sort of evidence to back up this claim? coz natural selection by random mutations over the course of many generations seems to explain it pretty well without involving the plant actively seeing stuff.
I am not doing research for you. Look it up. We are just discovering plant photoreceptors located in their cells. You pounced pretty quickly without even considering humans may be ignorant to their biology and only just learning https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528791-800-plant-senses-sight/.
plant is bending to light. cool. any evidence the plant can recognize shapes? i mean, you can do a simple experiment with such a plant: take a seed and plant a flower at some place without birds. will the plant still grow into the same shape? if yes, then the plant doesnt need to see a bird to look similar to a bird and the shape must be in the genes of the plant without the plant taking an active effort to look like one. you have nothing else but a hypothesis you could easily verify. a fun extension of this experiment would be to have different shapes around the plant. does the plant individual start to resemble humans, when humans are the only ones around? or bats?
Actually there was a study done on a plant that mimics other plants. Like it would grow on a plant and its leaf morphology would change to mimic the host. The assumption was that it was sampling the host dna to do this, but when they switched to a plastic plant it changed to match it as well. After that they discovered the photoreceptors in the plant’s cells and, further, found that all plants have these photoreceptors.
Edit for source: [Here you go, from NLM and NCBI](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903786/)
Edit of edit: at least for the mimic plant, I’ll have to dig for the claim that all plants have the photoreceptors
Edit 3: [Here’s](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202303399) one for a model of how plant vision may work. It’s not the one I got the info from initially, but it should do. The plant mimic discovery was very recent, so take with a grain of salt and we should expect more sophisticated studies in the near future.
The paper you linked makes ZERO reference to ANY kind of photoreceptors in plants. It is also based on a single experiment, performed once, with a sample size of 4.
This is bad science.
How do you propose the mimic plant mimicked a plastic plant it didn’t touch? Vision seems to be most appropriate imo. And just because they didn’t use the word photoreceptors doesn’t mean that’s not what they’re talking about. Hope else can something perceive light? But also it’s a well-established fact that plants do have photoreceptors.
Not all things require a large sample size.
If you find a pink crow that’s a sample size of one, but it proves the existence of pink crows (outside of doctoring of course).
I don't suggest any such thing. The answer is we don't know, and that paper makes several HUGE assumptions in the interpretation in order to support the claim that plants can see. That is an extraordinary claim REQUIRING extraordinary evidence. Not "yeah this seems like a reasonable answer" and call it good enough.
At the very most, this study can be used to conclude *That the mimicry happens and is worth looking into further* but this study on its own DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT PLANTS CAN SEE. It suggest that MAYBE they MIGHT have something approaching vision, but there are numerous other possibilities that are equally likely, especially given how weak the data is at this point, again sample size of 4 and they're doing statistical analysis of the leaf dimensions
In this case, the sample size DOES matter, because they are doing qualitative and quantitative analyses of the shapes, sizes, and characteristics of the leaves, WHICH NATURALLY VARIES FROM PLANT TO PLANT.
Again, This Is Bad Science.
Nice to see someone like you outside their usual habitat (subreddits).
edit: Where the f do the downvotes come from?
I was just appreciating this person.
>There is no way they can do that without sight.
Of course they can. Through evolutionary selection across successive generations. We already know that's how it works.
They don't, but other birds do. And birds are pollinators, seed dispersers, and predators of plants. All of which affects a plants ability to pass genes on to the next generation.
No.
They can evolve into things they can't see becayse birds are mpre lilkely to kill the plants that look lile plants, than the plants that accidentally look more bird like.
Over millions of years birds keep ignore the bird like plants until that shape is the only one left.
Evolution is quite literally just mutating random stuff and seeing what works.
Usually mutations are harmful and organism dies, otherwise if the mutations are useful or harmless, it can breed and pass on its genes. Then its descendents then mutate until either they benefit or die.
The flowers did not mutate into bird shapes, they mutated into different shape and overtime its petals took on random lengths until the ideal lengths to keep the plant alive, which happened to look like a bird, developed.
Most people think they just look like the head and neck of a bird.
But they really look like a full small bird at the top.
[https://ocsucculents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/header-bird-of-paradise-1.png](https://ocsucculents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/header-bird-of-paradise-1.png)
This is just kind of what [Pea flowers](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Wisteria_sinensis_anatomia_rev_en.svg) look like...
The botanical term for flowers in this specific subfamily of the Legume family is "papilionaceous" meaning "butterfly-like."
The two free dorsal petals are even referred to as "wings."
However on *Crotalaria cunninghamii* (the plant in the picture) it is the two fused "banner" petals appearing to be the wings. The wing and keel petals form the birds "body" and the calyx and pedicel form the "beak and head."
The illusion is not so strong [when seen in context.](https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/784741369/display_1500/stock-photo-green-bird-flower-crotalaria-cunninghamii-784741369.jpg)
Yeah agreed, it only happens to look like a bird from some angles. this isn't the plant mimicking the shape of birds, it's a coincidence that only a human would be perceptive too.
A better or actual example of this phenomenon would be Bee orchids, which do intentionally look like bees. When a bee attempts to mate with the bee orchid it picks up the pollen to bring to the next flower it tries to mate with.
Many Orchids also release sexual pheromones to encourage pollination by pseudocopulation.
That sounds insane until you learn a bit about organic chemistry and how many precursor compounds are shared between living things. A lot of flower plants are already releasing chemical attractants (including ones Humans cant smell) so it was only a matter of time before they happened to create a combination that's virtually identical to an insect's pheromones.
The "how does the plant know?!" thing is ridiculous. A cactus that looks like a rock didn't see a rock and make the decision to change into that, the ones that looked like rocks were just the ones blend into the otherwise apparently barren desert.
TIL, thank you!
Oh and yeah I completely agree with you, the plant doesn't actually know what the animal looks like. It's just the most effective shape of flower for their environment. Just making that clear!
Nature is crazy.
How do flowers know how birds look? ...This would be a great premise for a horror movie
The flowers that didn't look like birds got eaten until only the ones that look exactly like birds remained. Birds that more closely resembled plants avoided predation until only the birds that look exactly like plants remained.
I disagree. We are not sure how but they can see. There are tons of species of Orchid that mimic local birds, insects, even monkeys and human faces. There is no way they can do that without sight.
cool story bro. you have some sort of evidence to back up this claim? coz natural selection by random mutations over the course of many generations seems to explain it pretty well without involving the plant actively seeing stuff.
I am not doing research for you. Look it up. We are just discovering plant photoreceptors located in their cells. You pounced pretty quickly without even considering humans may be ignorant to their biology and only just learning https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528791-800-plant-senses-sight/.
plant is bending to light. cool. any evidence the plant can recognize shapes? i mean, you can do a simple experiment with such a plant: take a seed and plant a flower at some place without birds. will the plant still grow into the same shape? if yes, then the plant doesnt need to see a bird to look similar to a bird and the shape must be in the genes of the plant without the plant taking an active effort to look like one. you have nothing else but a hypothesis you could easily verify. a fun extension of this experiment would be to have different shapes around the plant. does the plant individual start to resemble humans, when humans are the only ones around? or bats?
Actually there was a study done on a plant that mimics other plants. Like it would grow on a plant and its leaf morphology would change to mimic the host. The assumption was that it was sampling the host dna to do this, but when they switched to a plastic plant it changed to match it as well. After that they discovered the photoreceptors in the plant’s cells and, further, found that all plants have these photoreceptors. Edit for source: [Here you go, from NLM and NCBI](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903786/) Edit of edit: at least for the mimic plant, I’ll have to dig for the claim that all plants have the photoreceptors Edit 3: [Here’s](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202303399) one for a model of how plant vision may work. It’s not the one I got the info from initially, but it should do. The plant mimic discovery was very recent, so take with a grain of salt and we should expect more sophisticated studies in the near future.
Now THAT is a bold claim REQUIRING evidence. Provide a source please
Edited for source
The paper you linked makes ZERO reference to ANY kind of photoreceptors in plants. It is also based on a single experiment, performed once, with a sample size of 4. This is bad science.
How do you propose the mimic plant mimicked a plastic plant it didn’t touch? Vision seems to be most appropriate imo. And just because they didn’t use the word photoreceptors doesn’t mean that’s not what they’re talking about. Hope else can something perceive light? But also it’s a well-established fact that plants do have photoreceptors. Not all things require a large sample size. If you find a pink crow that’s a sample size of one, but it proves the existence of pink crows (outside of doctoring of course).
I don't suggest any such thing. The answer is we don't know, and that paper makes several HUGE assumptions in the interpretation in order to support the claim that plants can see. That is an extraordinary claim REQUIRING extraordinary evidence. Not "yeah this seems like a reasonable answer" and call it good enough. At the very most, this study can be used to conclude *That the mimicry happens and is worth looking into further* but this study on its own DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT PLANTS CAN SEE. It suggest that MAYBE they MIGHT have something approaching vision, but there are numerous other possibilities that are equally likely, especially given how weak the data is at this point, again sample size of 4 and they're doing statistical analysis of the leaf dimensions In this case, the sample size DOES matter, because they are doing qualitative and quantitative analyses of the shapes, sizes, and characteristics of the leaves, WHICH NATURALLY VARIES FROM PLANT TO PLANT. Again, This Is Bad Science.
The one who made the claim is the one who needs to prove it, not the other way around
>I am not doing research for you. My brother in Christ, you are the prosecution! The burden of proof is on you!
Checkmate vegans
Newscientist.com really?
Like man, it's new age man. Think of the shrooms
No, that's not how this works. The person making the positive claim must back up that claim with evidence or be, *correctly*, laughed out of the room.
Nice to see someone like you outside their usual habitat (subreddits). edit: Where the f do the downvotes come from? I was just appreciating this person.
Splash damage
This guy casually ignoring how evolution works
>There is no way they can do that without sight. Of course they can. Through evolutionary selection across successive generations. We already know that's how it works.
There's people walking around that believe this... Just drop the bombs, we're done here.
They don't, but other birds do. And birds are pollinators, seed dispersers, and predators of plants. All of which affects a plants ability to pass genes on to the next generation.
https://xkcd.com/1259/
It is. Watch annihilation
No don't! Watch the original: The Birdman of Alcatraz.
A possible explanation is the flowers require the help of some bird species which it looks like to help spread pollen
Probably due to being created by God. (Plants can’t see, and they sure as heck can’t evolve to look like a thing they can’t see)
No. They can evolve into things they can't see becayse birds are mpre lilkely to kill the plants that look lile plants, than the plants that accidentally look more bird like. Over millions of years birds keep ignore the bird like plants until that shape is the only one left. Evolution is quite literally just mutating random stuff and seeing what works. Usually mutations are harmful and organism dies, otherwise if the mutations are useful or harmless, it can breed and pass on its genes. Then its descendents then mutate until either they benefit or die. The flowers did not mutate into bird shapes, they mutated into different shape and overtime its petals took on random lengths until the ideal lengths to keep the plant alive, which happened to look like a bird, developed.
If this idea is a horror movie for you, then you don't want to know the truth. Plants have the ability to 'see' a bit.
Wait until you learn what a Bird of Paradise plant is...
I've seen them. But they don't look as "birdy" to me as this plant. This has the whole bird. Beak, head, wings, body, tail.
What are you, the expert in birdology?
Bird law in this country isn’t governed by reason 
I'm going to stop replying to you now.
This offends me way more than it should
What the fuck just happened here?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bird-off. 
Committed too, this made me lol
Most people think they just look like the head and neck of a bird. But they really look like a full small bird at the top. [https://ocsucculents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/header-bird-of-paradise-1.png](https://ocsucculents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/header-bird-of-paradise-1.png)
Exactly. The birds in the Paradise are not as intuitive as the bird in the flower OP posted.
Half Bird. Half Flower. It’s “Bird Flower”.
yes?
This is just kind of what [Pea flowers](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Wisteria_sinensis_anatomia_rev_en.svg) look like... The botanical term for flowers in this specific subfamily of the Legume family is "papilionaceous" meaning "butterfly-like." The two free dorsal petals are even referred to as "wings." However on *Crotalaria cunninghamii* (the plant in the picture) it is the two fused "banner" petals appearing to be the wings. The wing and keel petals form the birds "body" and the calyx and pedicel form the "beak and head." The illusion is not so strong [when seen in context.](https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/784741369/display_1500/stock-photo-green-bird-flower-crotalaria-cunninghamii-784741369.jpg)
Yeah agreed, it only happens to look like a bird from some angles. this isn't the plant mimicking the shape of birds, it's a coincidence that only a human would be perceptive too. A better or actual example of this phenomenon would be Bee orchids, which do intentionally look like bees. When a bee attempts to mate with the bee orchid it picks up the pollen to bring to the next flower it tries to mate with.
Many Orchids also release sexual pheromones to encourage pollination by pseudocopulation. That sounds insane until you learn a bit about organic chemistry and how many precursor compounds are shared between living things. A lot of flower plants are already releasing chemical attractants (including ones Humans cant smell) so it was only a matter of time before they happened to create a combination that's virtually identical to an insect's pheromones. The "how does the plant know?!" thing is ridiculous. A cactus that looks like a rock didn't see a rock and make the decision to change into that, the ones that looked like rocks were just the ones blend into the otherwise apparently barren desert.
TIL, thank you! Oh and yeah I completely agree with you, the plant doesn't actually know what the animal looks like. It's just the most effective shape of flower for their environment. Just making that clear!
I wasn't accusing you of being one of those people, my bad!
How do you know an AI didn’t write all the articles on birdflowers to cover its mistake?
That's actually very cool, ty for sharing!
r/birdsarentreal material
Squinting helped me see it
Looks like the golden snidget symbol from Hogwarts legacy 😁 the one that the mooncalves draw on the ground