Pubescence of indihescent fruits in Aceraceae is part of a dichotomous key for species identification. Pubescence is also understood as an adaptation to both provide thermoregulation and to limit evapotranspiration in floral structure. Both of these would aid in the development in ovules, especially in indihescent fruits. This is not controversial in botany; and does not require the fabrication of a new interpretation of the science. No botanical reference includes urticating hairs or other mechanistic adaptation to describe transport of samaras by mammals. Once again no need to fabricate new interpretation of the science. For good reference I suggest Thoreau "Faith in a Seed". His understanding of biology would help you in understanding transport of different seed types. It always helps to actually be literate in a subject before developing theory.
Also. Alot of research has been done on mammals and the fruits of Aceraceae. Are they dispersers or predators? Experimental science is overwhelming in favor of predators. Having worked with forest seeds for 40+ years, trees have developed asynchronous cycles to counteract predation much like arctic hares and lynx: as well as other adaptive response. Your hypothesis would be great to study in terms of climatic differences of Portland and Olympias climate. 36" of rain vs. 50" of rain. 65° avg. temp vs. 61° avg. temp. To quote the late Steve Herman " There is no need to reinvent the wheel"
Lastly Aceraceae are not Drosophyla. The lifespan of a population of maples in Forest Park are operating at different time scales than the introduction English Ivy. Certainly at a population level the maples have not had enough time to select and adapt. Trees can compartmentalize injury and disease and still live for centuries. Come back in a thousand years or so, and you might have an answer.
Imagining that it takes "a thousand years or so" to "select and adapt" is a gross misunderstanding, albeit one that is all too common in ecology. The point of my piece is to hypothesize about a difference that I have observed (hypothesis being central to science), and to propose phenotypic plasticity as an explanation. As I write in the piece, phenotypic plasticity is one way that organisms evade the "change only happens between generations" dogma of mid-20th century, evolution-only-happens-via-genes biology. We still don't know everything, by a long way, but our models now are far better than they used to be. Read the West-Eberhard book, and see if you come away with a richer understanding of how evolution works than you currently have. At the moment, you are using a lot of scientific-sounding words, some but not all of which you are using correctly, and there is little coherent in at least the written version of your thoughts.
Botanical Keys for Acer always separate out Acer macrophyllum by their hairy fruits.
I have no doubt there is phenotypic variation between Maples in Olympia and Portland. I can be convinced that there is climatic difference to explain difference in pubescence. It is a hypothesis that could actually be tested and is rooted in accepted science. But Ivy??? Eh. Not sure you can test that in a tree that lives 200+ years and a vine that is recently introduced while using pubescence as your metric.
I could discuss phenotypic variations in maple trees across numerous mountain ranges in the western US. It is a subject dear to my heart. I could even describe specific locations where one could find gradations in these phenotypes. The Acer genus is incredibly rich in phenotype variation in our region and has not been studied. Which is surprising in that UW does this type of research for maples of the world, but not so much in its own backyard.
I love discussions on how much is environment and how much is inherited: And I am very comfortable having this discussion with several species and genus of trees. With humans, not so much.
The literature on botanical pubescence in general, is often looked at in terms of aridity and temperature. The seed environment of Big Leaf Maples are much closer to a desert, than the mesic environment of their root structure and pubescence would be expected. This would ameliorate the seed environment.
The understory shrubs species of Acer lack this pubescence on their samaras. The seed environment of these arborescent shrubs live in a wetter place.
Also urticating hairs, maybe not the best choice of terms. This is a defense mechanism which excludes mammal predation and dispersal. Propolis in Maples is not well studied and could be an explanation, and retrorse hairs would be more appropriate as reasons for seeds sticking to feet or paws.
I have no doubt that my writing lacks cohesion. It is not something I work at. But reading I do, and I will look at West-Eberhard. And yes indehiscent seeds are incredibly rich environments for learning the language of hairs and hair variation in botany.
Natural Selections
Heather Heying replied to your comment
Imagining that it takes "a thousand years or so" to "select and adapt" is a gross misunderstanding, albeit one that is all too common in ecology. The point of my piece is to hypothesize
I write these posts in part to educate people about how to think evolutionarily. Since you seem either uninterested in or unable to learn from what I've written, I do hope that you read West-Eberhard, and beyond. Like many people in ecological fields, you seem to think that throwing a lot of words at a problem is the same thing as understanding it. And no, "not working at your writing" is not a defense. Clarity in communication is key, and so far, you have not made a coherent argument.
You also reveal a considerable bias by saying that evolutionary arguments don't apply to humans. This means that, if you stick to that framework, you will have little to learn from anything you read that provides an evolutionary framework for life on Earth, no matter how compelling, as you are stuck in a static worldview that explains little, but perhaps provides comfort.
The simple way to test this hypothesis would be to take some samaras from Oregon to Washington, and some samaras from Washington to Oregon, plant them, then check the samaras of the mature trees to see if they are smooth or prickly. Of course, this experiment would take a long tine to come to fruition. But maybe there is a tree nursery or some municipalities that have already done it accidentally - by selling or purchasing bigleaf maples around the area. 100 miles is not a great long distance, after all.
Pubescence of indihescent fruits in Aceraceae is part of a dichotomous key for species identification. Pubescence is also understood as an adaptation to both provide thermoregulation and to limit evapotranspiration in floral structure. Both of these would aid in the development in ovules, especially in indihescent fruits. This is not controversial in botany; and does not require the fabrication of a new interpretation of the science. No botanical reference includes urticating hairs or other mechanistic adaptation to describe transport of samaras by mammals. Once again no need to fabricate new interpretation of the science. For good reference I suggest Thoreau "Faith in a Seed". His understanding of biology would help you in understanding transport of different seed types. It always helps to actually be literate in a subject before developing theory.
Also. Alot of research has been done on mammals and the fruits of Aceraceae. Are they dispersers or predators? Experimental science is overwhelming in favor of predators. Having worked with forest seeds for 40+ years, trees have developed asynchronous cycles to counteract predation much like arctic hares and lynx: as well as other adaptive response. Your hypothesis would be great to study in terms of climatic differences of Portland and Olympias climate. 36" of rain vs. 50" of rain. 65° avg. temp vs. 61° avg. temp. To quote the late Steve Herman " There is no need to reinvent the wheel"
Lastly Aceraceae are not Drosophyla. The lifespan of a population of maples in Forest Park are operating at different time scales than the introduction English Ivy. Certainly at a population level the maples have not had enough time to select and adapt. Trees can compartmentalize injury and disease and still live for centuries. Come back in a thousand years or so, and you might have an answer.
Imagining that it takes "a thousand years or so" to "select and adapt" is a gross misunderstanding, albeit one that is all too common in ecology. The point of my piece is to hypothesize about a difference that I have observed (hypothesis being central to science), and to propose phenotypic plasticity as an explanation. As I write in the piece, phenotypic plasticity is one way that organisms evade the "change only happens between generations" dogma of mid-20th century, evolution-only-happens-via-genes biology. We still don't know everything, by a long way, but our models now are far better than they used to be. Read the West-Eberhard book, and see if you come away with a richer understanding of how evolution works than you currently have. At the moment, you are using a lot of scientific-sounding words, some but not all of which you are using correctly, and there is little coherent in at least the written version of your thoughts.
From Silvics N.Amer. Acer macrophyllum...
"Pubescent double samaras result, with 3.5- to 5-cm
(1.4- to 2-in) wings that diverge at less than a 90”
angle. They ripen in September and October.
Seed Production and Dissemination-Seeds
are abundant almost every year, but production by
individual trees and stands can vary from year to
year . The pubescent
seed coat appears to be effective in holding water and
raising seed moisture content quickly. Seed collection
and storage are best done when minimum moisture
content is reached before the start of the autumn
rains. "
Botanical Keys for Acer always separate out Acer macrophyllum by their hairy fruits.
I have no doubt there is phenotypic variation between Maples in Olympia and Portland. I can be convinced that there is climatic difference to explain difference in pubescence. It is a hypothesis that could actually be tested and is rooted in accepted science. But Ivy??? Eh. Not sure you can test that in a tree that lives 200+ years and a vine that is recently introduced while using pubescence as your metric.
I could discuss phenotypic variations in maple trees across numerous mountain ranges in the western US. It is a subject dear to my heart. I could even describe specific locations where one could find gradations in these phenotypes. The Acer genus is incredibly rich in phenotype variation in our region and has not been studied. Which is surprising in that UW does this type of research for maples of the world, but not so much in its own backyard.
I love discussions on how much is environment and how much is inherited: And I am very comfortable having this discussion with several species and genus of trees. With humans, not so much.
The literature on botanical pubescence in general, is often looked at in terms of aridity and temperature. The seed environment of Big Leaf Maples are much closer to a desert, than the mesic environment of their root structure and pubescence would be expected. This would ameliorate the seed environment.
The understory shrubs species of Acer lack this pubescence on their samaras. The seed environment of these arborescent shrubs live in a wetter place.
Also urticating hairs, maybe not the best choice of terms. This is a defense mechanism which excludes mammal predation and dispersal. Propolis in Maples is not well studied and could be an explanation, and retrorse hairs would be more appropriate as reasons for seeds sticking to feet or paws.
I have no doubt that my writing lacks cohesion. It is not something I work at. But reading I do, and I will look at West-Eberhard. And yes indehiscent seeds are incredibly rich environments for learning the language of hairs and hair variation in botany.
Natural Selections
Heather Heying replied to your comment
Imagining that it takes "a thousand years or so" to "select and adapt" is a gross misunderstanding, albeit one that is all too common in ecology. The point of my piece is to hypothesize
I write these posts in part to educate people about how to think evolutionarily. Since you seem either uninterested in or unable to learn from what I've written, I do hope that you read West-Eberhard, and beyond. Like many people in ecological fields, you seem to think that throwing a lot of words at a problem is the same thing as understanding it. And no, "not working at your writing" is not a defense. Clarity in communication is key, and so far, you have not made a coherent argument.
You also reveal a considerable bias by saying that evolutionary arguments don't apply to humans. This means that, if you stick to that framework, you will have little to learn from anything you read that provides an evolutionary framework for life on Earth, no matter how compelling, as you are stuck in a static worldview that explains little, but perhaps provides comfort.
The simple way to test this hypothesis would be to take some samaras from Oregon to Washington, and some samaras from Washington to Oregon, plant them, then check the samaras of the mature trees to see if they are smooth or prickly. Of course, this experiment would take a long tine to come to fruition. But maybe there is a tree nursery or some municipalities that have already done it accidentally - by selling or purchasing bigleaf maples around the area. 100 miles is not a great long distance, after all.
I do hope that she enjoys it!