Comments on: Madagascar’s Cryptids

By: plant girl

plant girl — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:40:31 +0000

When you think about it, herb plants have been used for centuries to mask odors or create scents used in cerimonies or rituals. there are also trees in the jungles that produce poisonous fruits, as well as poisonous sap. There is a sap from one of the rainforest trees that local tribes use for poison to put on the tips of their arrows. I believe that plants have to adapt to changes in this world to survive just as animals and humans do. possibly a long time ago in a galaxy far away ,Just kidding…… Possibly plants from centuries ago could have used poison to get prey. I read an article on line about apple trees. Human bones were found tangled in with the roots of the tree. Probably just a natural occurance Also found in cemetaries as well. Never the less facinating becouse i am sure the tree absorbed some nutrients from the bodies. weather it new it or not.

By: plant girl

plant girl — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:21:31 +0000

springheeledjack- venus fly traps produce a sent to luer its prey, as well as sundews. The insect is attracted by a sweet smell released by the leaf or by the glue glissening in the sun.
Another carniverous plant the “cobra plant” in the” pitcher plant family “has a sweet smelling bulb. When a bug lands on the cobra’s tongue and follows the sweet smell of nector into the bottom of the plant; it gets caught. Yummy ! There is also a lot of intersesting information on the web as well.

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:04 +0000

The December 2007 issue of Wildlife Conservation is “Titled small wonders, big Threats in Madagascar”.
Helen Crowley, director of WCS Madagascar Program. “we have been working in Madagascar for 13 years as a key partner in the national and international effort to conserve the countrys unique wildlife”.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:43:53 +0000

The man eating tree thing is intriguing…It could have a poisonous sap or some sort of anesthetizing sap that could lure in prey and then trap it…hey I’m just using my imagination, but I think the venus fly trap has a sweet odor or some such thing to draw in prey (those more learned in that area please correct me…).

While odd and more in the realm of sci-fi so far, I would not rule out the possibility!

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:32:49 +0000

I agree with things-in-the-woods about the so called “man eating tree”. There are many precedents for carnivorous plant life in the natural world, and this new cryptid tree is merely taking the same concept and magnifying it to a larger size. Botany is not my specialty, but if smaller plant life has adapted to take advantage of a meat eating diet, I suppose a tree might do the same if it was efficient enough and there was a selective edge to be had by doing so.

The one thing that I see that would be a challenge for a carnivorous tree is catching such large prey and making sure it stays caught. The wood carving representation depicts a tree that seems to use long, flexible vines almost like the tentacles of an octopus. Plants just do not have musculature like animals and as such are somewhat limited in their movement options. True, some carnivorous plants move with a surprising speed when snapping shut, and other plants such as ivy definitely spread tendrils at a good rate, but the type of tentacle-like branches shown here that are fast and dexterous enough to ensnare a human being seem implausible in comparison. I suppose they could have a strong adhesive substance to bind a human or other large animal before slowly pulling them in, but a fast moving tentacle of the sort that could quickly lash out to grab people or animals and actually hold onto them would be very odd indeed in light of what we see in other known carnivorous plants.

Of course, in theory there are a lot of ways that a meat eating tree could possibly secure its prey and it is a good topic to speculate on. However, it seems to me that any means of catching, holding, and digesting such large prey would require enormous amounts energy on the tree’s part. Perhaps the energy required to be expended by a plant to catch and digest man sized prey, as well as maintain its large mass, outweighs any benefits of a meat eating diet at this size, and so we see carnivorous plants regulated to the much smaller sizes of known species. Sure some meat eating plants, like the “rat eating plant” mentioned here recently, eat surprisingly large animals, but there is no known plant life that eats any prey even approaching the size of a human being. This leads me to think that maybe there could be a biological or evolutionary reason why large meat eating plant-life, like trees, aren’t favored and haven’t developed. Maybe there are factors, such as energy investment in relation to selected advantages, that impose the apparent size limit on carnivorous plant life seen so far.

All in all I must admit I’m pretty skeptical of the man eating tree, but I won’t say it is impossible. If it is out there, though, it would indeed be a very odd and startling find.

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:01:53 +0000

Mystery Man your quite right, i even hope that one of the Elephant Bird Genra, about the size of a chicken still eixts.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:26:02 +0000

Interesting, as always. One thing did catch in my craw, however; the use of the word “subfossil”. I guess I should get used to the fact that if geologists were as scientific about language as they are about rocks, the word fossil would be used more accurately…and the inaccurate use of language (my own mistakes not withstanding) leads to inaccurate concepts and error in thought.
This is something I share with good old Isaac Asimov who was vexed by our use of the word “venusian” when applied to anything regarding the planet Venus, where in fact it should be consistent with the language system from which it is derived. If that were done we’d call stuff about Venus venereal…and since we associate that with sexual disease, one can see how it was just easier to avoid the conflict as it resided in the mind of the less educated.
By the way, the description regarding this “sub-fossil” should have been “non-mineralized”. Does submarine mean not yet completely marine? No.
Fossil derives from the latin word describing the activity of digging and since originally most fossils were “dug up” not simply because they were preserved by mineralization and replacement., but of course, that’s what it was taken to mean by those for whom language is not always a reflection of a logical and orderly system, such as science exemplifies. OK…I’m done venting for the time being.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:35:35 +0000

Both mystery-man and sschaper make good points. Neither a folklore memory, nor an actual survival, of an animal species over a thousand years would be that unusual. These kind of cryptids (i.e. ones that are known to have existed) are always more likely than ones for whom there is no obvious evidence of their having existed in prehistory (i.e. - and i hate to say it - bigfoot).

Shumway- what do you mean a carnivorous tree would be “against everything we are taught that life on this planet has to be”? Says who?

By: sschaper

sschaper — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:24:50 +0000

An animal thought extinct for 1,000 years (and thus potentially only half that time) could easily remain in folklore, could it not?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:44:50 +0000

Some of these animals, like the dwarf hippo and giant lemur mentioned, have only been considered extinct for a thousand years, which is really a blink of the eye in geological terms. There are plenty of examples of creatures being rediscovered that had “disappeared” for longer than that, and the idea that a creature could survive past its supposed extinction date only a thousand years ago is not completely outlandish. I would say it is not entirely implausible that these species could still be out there in the remote corners of the island. I actually think that Madagascar could prove to be harboring a good deal of new species. I would even be more bold and say that finding a new genus is in the cards. Who knows, with all of the specially evolved indigenous animals that we already know of inhabiting the island, maybe we will find something truly spectacular and unique in the coming years.