Comments on: Rats! Or Not?

By: Sordes

Sordes — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:34 +0000

Okay, I was actually wrong about the biogeography of rats, but what I wanted to say is that the headline “rat-eating plant discovered” is indeed a hype of the medias. There is no indication that this plants ever trapped and consumed a rat, and given its maximum pitcher size of only 15cm (N. truncata’s pitchers which ate the mouse reach more than 35cm), it is also very hard to believe that this would actually be possible, so the description as “rat-eating” is not really the truth. Perhaps the very largest pitchers would be big enough to hold a mouse, but no rat. I have seen already many very large (and some huge) nepenthes in reality, including N. truncata, and the largest pitchers of plants on my terrarium were also in the 15cm range (and ways too small to “consume” even a mouse), and only some of the largest ones could actually trap a big mouse. If you look how new science discoveries are presented in the popular press and the medias, you can see that most headlines are not actually the truth, but only eyecatchers. If you write “new plant discovered” nobody will look at it, if you write “new insectivorous plant discovered” more people will look. “Carnivorous plant” looks even better, but if you write “rat-eating-plant”, people want to know more, even if there is no indication and probably even no possibility that this plant could actually eat a rat. But if you read “rat-eating plant” is sounds if there would be a plant which would regularly eat rats. And even if most people know that this is not the case, others won’t.

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:34:27 +0000

If only for what-a-way-to-go purposes, ANY plant that can trap, and digest, ANY mammal is way cool. Accident or not.

I think that one factor in the apparent rarity of sasquatch sightings is how many of them get caught by sas-specific carnivorous trees.

But this is only speculation.

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:36:03 +0000

Now if it chased the rat around the room before eating it, THAT would be the business!

By: gavinfundyk

gavinfundyk — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:46:34 +0000

I doubt those here at cryptomundo believe there is a rat-specific pitcher plant. That doesn’t mean it can’t catch and eat a rat. (Juvenile rat at least). And just because eating it would normally kill the plant doesn’t mean it always does.

My one complaint, where’s the gross part of the video!?

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:07:39 +0000

A little reality check about rats in Australia:

There are currently over 60 described species of rats in Australia, and they occupy a wide range of the habitats across the country. The majority of these are native species; however two rats (Black Rat and Brown Rat) are introduced species that have rapidly adjusted to Australian conditions.Animalcontrol.com

By: lochnesshunter

lochnesshunter — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:59:44 +0000

I think even if they eat only mice they are still cool. I mean come on would YOU eat a rat (or mouse)? Neat discovery either way.

By: Sordes

Sordes — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:25:23 +0000

To come again on the topic why it is important if you speak about mouses or rats. I know I sound like a wisenheimer, but it really matters. No really for zoological or systematic reasons, but because a rat is much bigger. The mouse which was found at Lyon was already near the maximum size of an animal which could become trapped in such a Nepenthes with such big pitchers. A mouse has a weight of about 20g, but rats are normally in the range of 200-300g. They would be even for the huge N. truncata too big, and for the new australian species anyway. Only Nepenthes rajah would be able to trap a real rat. Actually there are only records of mammal-remains from N. rajah, this one case of N. truncata and also from N. rafflesia, another very large species with pitchers up to 35cm long and 15cm wide (but that´s really exceptional). And it seems that mammals become fall only on very rare instances prey to pitcher plants. The botanist and nepenthes specialist Ch’ien Lee from the University of Santa Cruz California for example, who studies nepenthes since more than a decade and examined them often in their natural habitat found only for one time the skeleton of a mouse in a big pitcher.

By: Sordes

Sordes — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:43:43 +0000

Hallo Loren. There are indeed a handful of cases in which small mammals were found in the pitchers of very large Nepenthes-species, for example in Nepenthes rajah, a short growing species with enormous compact pitchers, with a volume up to four litres (containing about 50%fluid). Their pitchers are normally directly lying on the forest floor, so it can sometimes happens that small rodents for example become trapped when they climb on them and try to drink. There are only very very few Nepenthes species which would be at least big enough to trap rats, but there are only a handful of other species. This new species with its highly elongated pitchers surely not. The pitcher plant at the photo on the top is Nepenthes truncata, a species which rivals with Nepenthes rajah for the title “Nepenthes with the biggest pitchers”. Their pitchers can also grow extremely voluminous, and it is no wonder that on rare occasions small mammals become trapped on them. But in this case it did not happen in the tropical rain forest, but in a botanic garden at Lyon, France. And the alleged rat is, given its tiny size, much more probably a mouse. The second video was without any doubt placed by a guy who wanted to feed its nepenthes with a mouse, in nature this would happen only very rarely.

The invention of the title “rat-eating-plant” was only for gaining publicity, because it sounds interesting and wakes attention, but in fact this plants Australian pitcher plants are no rat-eaters at all.

No carnivorous plant ever specialized to capture big prey like rodents, not only because the digestion of such animals is highly problematic, but also because there are huge masses of small and easy-to-digest insects where they grow. It is really no wonder that there is only a small handfull of report in which small mammals were found in very big pitchers, and you have to keep in mind that there were already many thousands of pitchers which were analyzed by botanists.

So to put it in a nutshell I have to say that I don’t doubt that some very large pitcher plants were found to have trapped and partly digested small mammals, this is a fact which I never denied, but this is not only a very rare and accidental event, but also only possible for very large pitcher plants, and highly improbable for this new-discovered Australian species.

There is no indication for actual mammal-eating behavior in this new species, only the headline somebody invented to attract readers and attention. This is NO insult against cryptomundo or its moderators, as this headline appeared worldwide, and the fact that it did, shows well how it worked.

By: CamperGuy

CamperGuy — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:57:26 +0000

Ceroill:
The difference is ewwww! & EWWWW call someone!

On the comment of no fossil of carniverous plants…..Isn’t Ingenus Dionaea Muscipula reported to be a debatable prehistoric carniverous plant ancestor of man eating proportions?

I am not going to watch the video to find out but if the pitcher plant does eat rats, I am sure it will be marketed as an organic vermin disposal unit.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:08:15 +0000

What’s the dividing line between a mouse and a rat anyway?