Comments on: The world’s shiniest living thing is an African fruit that looks like a pointillist bauble

By: a.c.

a.c. — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:59:54 +0000

Nature’s Ken Price

By: Tim J

Tim J — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:56:31 +0000

Thanks Ed—my concern is mostly about the way the popular press like to make everything absolute (except global warming, which they like to pretend is still disputed), and trying to avoid giving them opportunities to do that.

By: Jiri Cena

Jiri Cena — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:56:49 +0000

To me it looks like a good vine. Blue color gives it clarity and brilliance.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:51:20 +0000

There is no “awareness factor” in mimicry. Assuming Steiner is right, the plant will have gradually evolved an appearance that matches those of the blue berries around it, just like virtually every other mimic in the natural world.

By: emkay

emkay — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:22:27 +0000

The team thinks the plant is “mimicking the tasty blue fruits of a neighbor plant”.
Hmm, I’m having a tough time with mimicking because of the ‘awareness factor of mimicking?… requiring one plant to be ‘aware of a competing neighbor, in order to mimic it.

I prefer to observe the plant ‘as is’ and to realize that its beauty is obviously part of the mechanism for propagation, in that birds are attracted to shiny objects. But the plant is not ‘aware of the birds, any more than it is aware of the shiny neighbor plant, or us talking about it and wishing we had one in our homes…

By: C.Wright.Thru.U.

C.Wright.Thru.U. — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:55:34 +0000

It is divinely beautiful!
Thank you and love you Mother Nature, as always.

By: John Jarogh

John Jarogh — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:43:51 +0000

It`s very american to label things as “the most” this or that even in scientific papers. European scientists usually don`t adopt this point of view in their researches. The “the most” thing is of course useful if one wishes to make science attractive to non-scientifics and especially children but it can only endanger scientific objectivity if used at the research level. Ethologically it would be interesting to know whether the bird populations used to pick up these vegetal beads are especially attracted by the shining as there are everywhere bird species which like to collect small shining objects.

By: Lou Jost

Lou Jost — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:26:24 +0000

Thanks Ed and Dr Vignolini. Dr Vignolini, maybe I misunderstand your last sentence, but I see no mention of your own Morpho measurements in your paper’s Methods section, so I am confused. Anyway, my main question was “Which Morpho species was compared to Pollia?” As I pointed out above, there are huge differences in reflectivity between species. Also, for the more reflective species, the angle of maximum reflection is very narrow and there is the potential to miss it.
Regards, Lou

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:39:55 +0000

@Lou – From Vignolini:

“In that paper, they compare the reflectivity with diffusion standard not a silver mirror. Second, the method of measurement is different. They collect the total reflectivity with integration sphere, we measure local reflectivity at normal incidence. Reflectivity from flowers with integrating sphere can reach 80% of reflectivity, but that is due to scattering more than directional reflection, which is what we measure. We specify in our paper methods, using a Morpho, that the reflectivity with our setup was about 20%.”

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:45:27 +0000

@Tim J – Your point is well made, but I think it is implicit when we talk about records – and I really don’t think it’s a problem to talk about records – that we’re describing what is known. Because, as you point out, it would be patently illogical to extend the claim to what is unknown. The bit about misrepresenting science as a series of facts and not a process is very well taken, however.