Do plants deliberately deceive insects?
Keith S. Taber
[Image credits: Rafflesia – Maizal, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Amorphophallus titanum – ailing moose, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; fly and beetle – by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay]
Mysterious plants
Earlier this week I heard an episode of BBC Radio 4's 'Start the Week' programme entitled 'Mysterious Plants' 1 (which can be heard here). It is always good to hear science-related episodes of series such as this. The mysterious plants included Amorphophallus titanum 2 believed to have the largest un-branched inflorescence of any plant in the world; and the parasitic genus Rafflesia, one species of which is thought to have the largest individual flowers in the world. 3
I could not help notice, however, that according to the guests, some plants are sentient beings, able to reflect on their circumstances, and to deliberately act in the world. Botanist Dr Chris Thorogood (of University of Oxford's Oxford Botanic Garden and Arboretum) described the parasitic plant Rafflesia as being 'pretty sneaky'. This is anthropomorphic, because – if taken literally – it implies deliberate behaviour.
No insects were deceived in the making of this programme
He was outdone, in this sense though, by evolutionary chemical ecologist Dr Kelsey Byers (of The John Innes Centre, Norwich) who told listeners,
"So these flies and beetles like to lay their eggs on rotting meat', and the flower goes 'oh, what if I also looked and smelled like rotting meat', or like the Amorphophallus titanum you might see at Kew Gardens for example, 'what if I also emitted heat, just like a pile of rotting meat?' …
So, what it's attracting are flies and beetles that essentially are going 'Ooh, that smells like food, that looks like food, I'm going to lay my eggs here, it's going to be great, my babies will have a great chance to survive'.
But there's, there's no food, it is deceiving them, it's basically saying 'I'm, mimicking the food, come and stay'."
Dr Kelsey Byer speaking on Radio 4
Now, I assume that Dr Byers does not intend this as a literal account of the biology discussed. In strict scientific terms, it is rather misleading
- "flies and beetles like to lay their eggs on rotting meat"
I get a little uneasy when non human entities are described as liking things, as this does not reflect the subjective human experience of liking, say chocolate or Pink Floyd. But this unease probably links to the common alternative conception that students acquire in chemistry that atoms 'like' or 'want' full shells of electrons. Dr Byers could quite reasonably suggest that "flies and beetles tend to lay their eggs on rotting meat"; that their behaviour reflects a preference; and that is what 'likes' means. Fair enough.
- "the flower goes 'oh, what if I also looked and smelled like rotting meat' … 'what if I also emitted heat, just like a pile of rotting meat?'…"
Now, flowers do not express themselves in language, and in any case (I'm fairly certain) do not have thoughts to potentially be expressed in language. Plato (2008) has his spokesperson Timaeus suggest that plants were "the kind of living being that…knows nothing of belief, reasoning, and intelligence". 4 So, no, plants do not do this – at least not literally.
- "flies and beetles essentially are going 'Ooh, that smells like food, that looks like food, I'm going to lay my eggs here, it's going to be great, my babies will have a great chance to survive'…"
So insects are animals, and I can be less sure they do not have any kind of thought processes. (But it seems likely conscious thought requires a much more complex nervous system than that of any insect.) The 'essentially' means that Dr Byers is not suggesting they are directly expressing these ideas, but only indirectly (perhaps, those behavioural preferences again?) But I am pretty sure that even if insects could be said to 'think' at some level, they do not have formal concepts of food. I do not doubt that the fly experiences something when it eats that is different to when it is not eating, but I really doubt it is meaningful to suggest a fly has any concept of eating or can be said to 'know' when it is eating.
Surely, a fly feeding is pure instinct. It responds to cues (smell much more than sight I should think given the fly's compound eye {perhaps excellent for spotting movement, but – identifying potential meals?}, and the likely distance away that food might be found) to approach some material (without thinking, 'oh good, that smells like food!') and then further cues (greater intensity of the smell, perhaps; texture underfoot?) trigger eating, or egg laying. To be honest, I think even as a human I have sometimes behaved this way myself when distracted by a problem occupying all my conscious attention! (To clarify, that's when eating, not laying eggs.)
I do not think flies or beetles have any concept of 'babies'. I am pretty sure they do not know that egg laying is a reproductive function (even if they can be said to have any awareness that they are laying eggs), and will lead to offspring. I'm also pretty sure they are not aware of the issue of infant mortality, and that that they have a greater chance to be a grandparent if they choose the right place to lay their eggs.
- The plant is deceiving the insects, it's basically saying 'I'm, mimicking the food, come and stay'.
Again, the plant is not saying anything. If does not have a notion of mimicry, and is not aware it is mimic. It does not have any notions. It is not deliberately deceiving the flies or beetles. It does not know there are flies or beetles in the world. It does not do anything deliberately.
I am not even sure it is right to say the plant deceives. You can only deceive an entity capable of being deceived. Insects are not deceived, just following instincts. The plant does not do anything to deliberately attract or entice the insects – their attraction to the plant is just a consequence of a match of the animal's instincts (not under the control of the insect), and the plant's evolved anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.
Now, as I suggested above, I am pretty sure Dr Byers knows all this (much better than me!) Perhaps this is just a habitual way of talking she has adopted to discuss her work, or perhaps she was deliberately using figurative language on this occasion to help communicate the science to a diverse radio audience. To 'make the unfamiliar familiar' the abstract concepts of science need to be related to more familiar everyday experiences. The narrative here helps to humanise science.
Read about 'making the unfamiliar familiar' in teaching
Dr Byers is not alone in this way of presenting science – it is very common when scientists talk to general audiences (e.g., so, no, vegetarians bees did not realise they were missing out on a potential food source and so decide to start eating meat).
Anthropomorphism and teleology
This type of figurative language is anthropomorphic. That is, it treats non-humans (flowers, whole plants, insects, clouds, atoms…) as if they were human – with human cognition (concepts, deliberate conscious thinking) and motivations and emotions. Humans are part of the natural world, and the extent to which anthropomorphism distorts scientific accounts surely varies. An atom cannot be jealous. Nor a bacterium. But I would think a chimp can be.5 What about a fish?
This is a serious issue for science educators because learners often use anthropomorphic language in science lessons, and it is less clear they are doing so figuratively. They may mean this literally – and even if not, may come to habitually use this kind of language and so feel that in doing so they really they can explain phenomena 'scientifically'. But from a technical scientific perspective these are only pseudo-explanations (Taber & Watts, 2000).
Read about the types of pseudo-explanations learners commonly offer
So, sodium reacts with chlorine because the atoms want to fill their shells (Taber & Watts, 1996). So wrong, on so many levels, but so many students think that is the scientific account! Bacteria want to infect us, and seek to become resistant to antibiotics. And so many more examples.
Read about anthropomorphism in students' thinking
Read examples of anthropomorphic explanations in science
The canonical biological explanation is that living things are the way they are because they have evolved to be so, through natural selection. It is natural selection that has led to insects laying eggs in conditions where they are likely to hatch – such as in rotting meat. It is natural selection that has led to some plants attracting insect pollinators by becoming similar to rotting meat – similar, that is, in how those plants are perceived within the insect's unwelt.
But lay people often tend to prefer teleological explanations because they appeal more to our own instincts. It seems that things are the way they are for a purpose: as if a plant was guided towards a new structure because there is an end point, identified from the outset, of becoming attractive to insects that will fertilise the flowers.
As humans behave deliberately and work towards goals, it is easy to transfer this familiar scheme to non-human species. Because human artefacts (the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids, the iPhone, the international space station) have been designed and built with purposes in mind, it is easy to also see the intricate and effective structures and mechanisms of the living world as also designed with purpose in mind.
Of course, some of these biological structures can seem so unlikely to have evolved through 'chance' or 'trial and error' that many people find the canonical scientific account non-feasible. (And, it is very hard for people to conceptualise the sheer number of generations over which species have evolved.) Of course, although chance is involved, at each step there is feedback into the system: there is preferential selection of some outcomes. What 'works' is selected not so much because it works, but by virtual of it working.
Evolution is contingent – natural selection can only select the features that are 'in play' at a particular time. But which features remain in play is not just down to chance. 6 So, to adopt an analogy, natural selection is not simply a matter of chance, like a number coming up on a roulette wheel. It is more like a game of poker where the cards dealt may be at random, but one can then select which cards to keep, to build up a winning hand. 7
Darwin's book on 'various contrivances'
Darwin was very aware of this general problem, and the specific example of how it came to be that some plants need to be fertilised in very particular ways, by particular insects – and would seem to have structures so specific and well matched to their pollinators that it seems incredible they could have evolved rather than had been deliberately designed.
Darwin knew that many people found his account of evolution unconvincing in the face of the subtlety and intricacies of natural forms. He chose to study the orchids in some detail because they showed great diversity in flower structures and often seemed especially well 'designed' (with 'various contrivances') for their particular animal fertilisers. Darwin argued that all these odd structures could be understood to have slowly evolved from a common ancestor plant by myriad small modification of ancestral structures that collectively led to the wide diversification of forms (Darwin, 1862)
A difficult balance for science communicators
So, science communicators – whether teachers or journalists or scientists themselves – have a challenge here. The kind of language that is most likely to engage an audience and make science seem accessible can actually come to stand in the way of genuine understanding of the scientific principles.
I do not think that means figurative language should be completely avoided in discussing science, but it is very important to remember that an account which is intended to obviously be metaphorical may be understood literally because anthropomorphism and teleology seem to make perfectly good sense to most people.
These kinds of pseudo-explanations may not score any credit in science exams, but this way of thinking is perhaps as instinctively appealing to many humans as, say, laying eggs in rotting meat is to some insects.
Work cited:
- Darwin, C. (1862) On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. London: John Murray
- Plato (2008) Timaeus and Critias (Translator: Robin Waterfield).Oxford University Press, 2008.
- Taber, K. S. and Watts, M. (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding, International Journal of Science Education, 18 (5), pp.557-568. (Download this paper)
- Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (2000). Learners' explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 329-353. (Download this paper)
Notes:
1 The enticing episode description is:
"The plant Rafflesia has the world's largest flowers and gives off one of the worst scents; it's also something of a biological enigma, a leafless parasite that lives off forest vines. For the botanist Chris Thorogood, an expert in parasitic and carnivorous plants at the Oxford Botanic Garden and Arboretum, Rafflesia is also an obsession. In his book, Pathless Forest, he goes in search of this mysterious plant in some of the last wildernesses in South East Asia.
Dr Kelsey Byers is an evolutionary chemical ecologist who specialises in floral scent and its influence on the evolution of flowering plants. In her laboratory at the John Innes Centre in Norwich she studies how flowers use different smells to attract their pollinator of choice. From sweet aromas to the stink of rotting flesh, she explores how plants use con-artistry and sexual deception to thrive.
The ethnobotanist William Milliken from Kew Gardens has spent much of his career working with indigenous people in the Amazon to preserve traditional plant knowledge. Now he's focused on collecting folklore about the use of plants to treat ailments in animals in Britain. From wild garlic treating mastitis in cows, to cabbage for flatulence in dogs, he hopes to uncover a cornucopia of plant-based veterinary medicines."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wxkb
2 Dr Thorogood helpfully explained that what Amorphophallus titanum actually means is 'giant distorted penis'.
Does a sunflower have large flowers?
3 Some plants have a great many flowers on the same 'head' or inflorescence. Consider the sunflower. From a distance it seems each of the flowers are large, but, on closer inspection, each inflorescence has a great many tiny individual flowers – each one able to produce pollen and be fertilised.
A photo-essay showing sunflowers at different stages of development including close-ups of the structures can be seen here.
4 Although, to be fair, he went on to suggest that a plant "is aware only of the pleasures and pains that accompany its appetites". I would suggest, not.
5 Am I over-cautious? We assume all normal humans beings can potentially feel anger, jealousy, love, fear, etc. But actually no one really knows if anyone else has the same subjective experiences when two people report they are envious, or in love. People could be experiencing something quite different and still using the same label. (This is the qualia issue – e.g., how do I know if the experience I have of red is what you experience? This is something quite different from agreeing on which objects are red.) After all, some people find odours and flavours attractive that others find unpleasant, and the same mode of tickling can lead to quite different responses from different patients.
I think a dog could be sad, and a rabbit can be scared. But I doubt [sic, I mean really doubt] an earthworm could be proud. Unless we can decide where to draw the lines, we really have to wonder if these terms meaningfully transfer across species.
6 At the level of an individual's survival and reproduction, there is a lot of chance involved. Being in the right, or wrong, place when a mate, or a predator, appears; or when a flood, or a forest fire, happens, may have little to do with the variations in features within a population. But a slight advantage in attracting the mate or escaping the peril means that over a large population, across many generations, some features will be preferentially passed on.
7 Strictly these processes are not random, but 'near enough' for human purposes. A roulette ball is large enough to be a classical object (that is we can ignore the indeterminacy that seems to be part of quantum mechanics) so given the spin of the wheel, and the initial trajectory and entry point of the ball (and such factors as the fiction produced due to the materials involved) it is in principle possible to consider this a deterministic process. That is, particular, precise, starting conditions will lead to distinct, in principle predictable, outcomes. In practice though, no human could control the wheel and ball precisely enough to manufacture a specific outcome. It may as well not be deterministic.
Much the same is true of a pack of cards. Given the original order of the deck and a finite number of specific moves to shuffle the deck, only one new order is possible. It is however again difficult to deliberately shuffle a deck and control the new order (though perhaps not quite impossible – which is why often the person shuffling the deck invites other players to choose cuts within the process).
Sometimes in research, the methodology adopted requires randomisation (for example of individual participants to different experimental conditions) and usually such process as rolling dice or drawing blind ballots are 'good enough' even if not strictly random, as no person could control the outcomes obtained.
Read about the criterion for randomisation in research
