Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:28:32 +0100
In message <pp1d05l25lk8bm9mlpjj5ebg165jp5el43@xxxxxxx>, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Sun, 10 May 2009 07:34:36 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In message <vxqNl.38650$i9.33648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[M]adman"
<adman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes
Ernest Major wrote:How many species of seed plant are there?
:: In message <pujNl.38943$9a.20772@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[M]adman"
:: <adman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes
::: The seed. THATS right. The seed.
:::
::: The seed has a duel purpose.
:::
::: The seed can be a nutritious food, or, the seed can be planted to
::: make more seeds.
:::
::: Clearly a design for efficiency. Anyone that cannot see this has
::: zero perception.
:::
:::
:: I take it that you haven't considered the toxicity of the seeds of,
:: for example, the rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), or the castor bean
:: (Ricinus communis), or the bitter almond (Prunus amygdalus), or the
:: deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna). In all these cases the seeds
:: are highly toxic.
:: --
:: alias Ernest Major
A hand full out of millions
About 350,000 species of plants, defined as seed plants, bryophytes,
ferns and fern allies, are estimated to exist currently. As of 2004,
some 287,655 species had been identified, of which 258,650 are
flowering and 18,000 bryophytes.
You could have waited and let M/adman proffer a nonsense answer.
I'd make a rough estimate of 500,000 species, but I'd count polyploid cytotypes as separate species, a practice which hasn't yet taken off in the botanical community.
Also, the description of new plant species continues apace. I would doubt that only 20% of species are undescribed.
Govaerts published estimates of 420,000 (2001) and 446,000 (2004).
One genus (Hibiscus) has published estimates of circa 300 species. My list, assembled from floras and taxonomic papers, runs to over 400 species. While I probably have some synonyms in the list (e.g. H. cardiophyllus/H. martianus), I doubt that that explains the whole surplus.
A list in Wikipedia is liable to be incomplete, so that's not a particularly persuasive citation. (However, one might note that orchid seeds are not nutritious, and that the orchids account for 10% of plant species.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/plant#Diversity
What proportion have edible
seeds?
Not very high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_edible_seeds
--
alias Ernest Major
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Walter Bushell
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Garamond Lethe
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- References:
- Further proof of Design.
- From: [M]adman
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: [M]adman
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: Further proof of Design.
- From: Ye Old One
- Further proof of Design.
- Prev by Date: Re: International Congress on Drawin's impact on science, society and
- Next by Date: Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- Previous by thread: Re: Further proof of Design.
- Next by thread: Re: Further proof of Design.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|