Mystical Rock Lotus

na bachlóga

the buds

Edward S. Casey & Michael Marder, Plants in Place: A Phenomenology of the Vegetal (2024)

the Guardian

York groundsel blooms again in Britain’s first-ever de-extinction event

Yellow flower that only grows in York went extinct in 1991 brought back to life by Natural England experts

By Patrick Barkham

The Guardian

May 27, 2023

York groundsel was a cheerful yellow flower that slipped into global extinction in 1991, thanks to overzealous application of weedkiller in the city of its name.

But now the urban plant has been bought back to life in the first ever de-extinction in Britain, and is flowering again in York.

The species of groundsel was only ever found around the city and only evolved into its own species in the past century after non-native Oxford ragwort hybridised with native groundsel.

York groundsel, Senecio eboracensis, was discovered growing in the car park of York railway station in 1979 and was the first new species to have evolved in Britain for 50 years, thriving on railway sidings and derelict land.

But the new plant’s success was short-lived, as urban land was tidied up and chemicals applied to remove flowers dismissed as “weeds”.

It was last seen in the wild in 1991. Fortunately, researchers kept three small plants in pots on a windowsill in the University of York. These short-lived annual plants soon died, but they produced a precarious pinch of seed, which was lodged at Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank.

Andrew Shaw of the Rare British Plants Nursery had a vision to bring the species back to life, but when tests were carried out on some privately held seeds very few germinated successfully.

So Natural England, the government’s conservation watchdog, quickly authorised a de-extinction attempt via its species recovery programme, which has funded the revival of the most threatened native species for 30 years.

“The Millennium Seed Bank said the seed was getting near the end of its lifespan and so we thought we would only have one more chance of resurrecting it,” said Alex Prendergast, a vascular plant senior specialist for Natural England.

Natural England paid for a polytunnel at the Rare British Plants Nursery in Wales, where 100 of the tiny seeds were planted. To the botanists’ surprise, 98 of the seeds germinated successfully. The polytunnel rapidly filled with a thousand York groundsel plants.

In February six grams of seed – potentially thousands of plants – were sown into special plots around York on council and Network Rail land.

This week, the first plants in the wild for 32 years began to flower, bringing colour to the streets and railway sidings of York.

This de-extinction is likely to be a one-off in this country because York groundsel is the only globally extinct British plant that still persists in seed form and so could be revived.

But Prendergast said the de-extinction showed the value of the Millennium Seed Bank – to which plenty of York groundsel seed has now been returned – and there were a number of good reasons for bringing the species back to life.

“It’s a smiley, happy-looking yellow daisy and it’s a species that we’ve got international responsibility for,” he said.

“It only lives in York, and it only ever lived in York. It’s a good tool to talk to people about the importance of urban biodiversity and I hope it will capture people’s imagination.

“It’s also got an important value as a pollinator and nectar plant in the area because it flowers almost every month of the year.”

“Pitcher Plant”

I dislike the term “pitcher plant”. It reeks of outdated ignorance and describes a vast number of species from around the world, many of which are not closely related to each other.

As a botanist, and an evil one at that, I prefer to be precise with my language. You too can become an educated scientist and terrific snob by using the correct terms for each variety of “pitcher plant”. If you require education on the matter, allow me to inform you.

There are three families of “pitcher plant”: Sarraceniaceae, Nepenthaceae, and Cephalotaceae. Sarraceniaceae has 3 genera — namely Sarracenia, Heliamphora, and Darlingtonia. Nepenthaceae has a single genus (Nepenthes), and Cephalotaceae has a single species. An entire family with only one species. Ugh.

Now, they look quite distinct from each other, so here are some photos and facts.

This species belongs to Sarracenia, the North American or trumpet pitcher plants. Note the height and slender shape.

This is also a Sarracenia. Note the lack of height and squat shape. Most Sarracenia species look like one of these two — they are quite easy to identify. They are found in boggy, temperate areas around North America and reach a height of up to 4 feet tall.

This is a stunning example of a Nepenthes (tropical pitcher plants) species. These are what you likely think of when someone mentions “pitcher plants”. Beautiful, found in warm, humid regions of the world. They are climbing vines and pitchers can reach over a foot tall (this is species-dependent).

This is an example of Heliamphora, the sun pitchers. They can be found in South America. While still belonging to the family Sarraceniaceae, they are not as tall as Sarracenia, but still quite graceful. If you have a mind for Greek, you may wonder if the “heli” in Heliamphora is for sun (from “helios”). It is not. The name Heliamphora instead comes from “helos”, meaning marsh. The name “sun pitcher” is misleading and comes from a misunderstanding — these plants would be more accurately called “marsh pitchers”.

I have a passionate love-hate relationship with Cephalotus follicularis. Cephalotus is a monotypic genus (a genus with only one species) and of course it is Australian. They look similar to Nepenthes but are unrelated and much smaller — the plants reach just shy of 8 inches tall.

There are also the cobra lilies, Darlingtonia, which belong to Sarraceniaceae. Those are arguably similar enough to Sarracenia that they do not need to be discussed here. Darlingtonia is another monotypic genus within Sarraceniaceae.

Now you have absolutely no excuse. You have been informed on the major genera of “pitcher plants” and should weaponize this knowledge as you see fit.

The brilliant and brave may also wish to weaponize the plants themselves. Kindly send me updates if you do. I am ever so curious…

Malva

Obsessed with the wording here

link to pdf 

Invasive Species and Xenophobia

Invasive species are complicated! People have a lot of feelings about them, positive and negative. Are plants that move "invaders" "colonizing", "immigrants", "citizens"? What does it mean to kill species that are from somewhere else? What if that species legitimately makes a poor neighbor and causes extinctions in other, native species? This complex, culturally-loaded issue is a foundational issue behind a lot of plant conservation and restoration.

This is a juicy and still actively disputed topic! The Guardian recently had a big article on colonialism in Botany, (tbh her views are dated and reductive, imo) and it’s come up again this week, to much hostility (cw: reddit). Yes, my region's native plant restoration came from literal nazis, but also, the impacts of some invasive species are real, not figments of a racist imagination. How do we balance these issues? What does ethical invasive management look like?

Since it’s such a juicy topic, I wanted to offer a few fun readings to share:

The Native Plant Enthusiasm: Ecological Panacea or Xenophobia?, Gert Gröning and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2004, Arnoldia.

THE CLASSIC 20th century German nazis and native plants paper. Made a huge splash when it came out, and you will still encounter people who paint all native plant stuff with this brush. Summary: yeah the nazis loved their native plants and used them as part of their conquering process. Also, the first prairie plantings ever, located in Chicago, were done by a racist probable-nazi for racist reasons, full stop. I’ll let him speak for himself: “The gardens that I created myself shall… be in harmony with their landscape environment and the racial characteristics of its inhabitants. They shall express the spirit of America and therefore shall be free of foreign character as far as possible… the Latin and the Oriental crept and creeps more and more over our land, coming from the South, which is settled by Latin people, and also from other centers of mixed masses of immigrants. The Germanic character of our race, of our cities and settlements was overgrown by foreign character. The Latin spirit has spoiled a lot and still spoils things every day.” - Jens Jensen

Botanical decolonization: rethinking native plants, Tomaz Mastnak, 2014, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Rather than viewing native plant plantings as an act of racially-pure occupation, Mastnak positions native plants in California as a decolonization of the sub/urban lawn. Uses a lot of quotations from 16th century English philosopher Francis Bacon, and is heavy on the philosophical musings.

From killing lists to healthy country: Aboriginal approaches to weed control in the Kimberley, Western Australia by Bach et al., 2019, Journal of Environmental Management.

This paper talks through some of the native vs invasive debate, and offers a different perspective on how to approach to plant invasive management based on cultural relations, rather than country of origin or behavior.

Beyond ‘Native V. Alien’: Critiques of the Native/alien Paradigm in the Anthropocene, and Their Implications, Charles R. Warren, 2021, Ethics, Policy, & Environment

DENSE but thorough, if you want to follow the entire history of the native/invasive debate, this has you covered. The most interesting stuff, in my opinion, is the discussion of invasive denialism, IE: the impasse of “You’re just being racist!” Vs “You know nothing about ecology!” I recommend the Discussion, which starts on page 13.

White Calla

Ragwort