Re: Can natural selection drive development of aesthetic values in wildflowers?
Hello, folks, I received several good answers to my question on aesthetics and flowers-- thanks. One particular response from Chad Tillberg at the U. of IL was sent to me personally and I thought I should share it. Here it is. Ernie Rogers -- Hi Ernie- A great question that a lot of people have investigated. You might check the literature on pollinator preference and floral symmetry. You'll find that insect pollinators do tend to prefer symmetrical flowers! Why? Symmetrical flowers tend to have more nectar. A couple papers that might get you started in the lit could be: MOLLER AP 1995 BUMBLEBEE PREFERENCE FOR SYMMETRICAL FLOWERS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 92 (6): 2288-2292 Giurfa M, Eichmann B, Menzel R 1996 Symmetry perception in an insect NATURE 382 (6590): 458-461 What is the significance of symmetry to the plant? You will also come across studies that quantify correlates of plant fitness and floral symmetry. In general, higher symmetry is correlated with higher fitness. As for human perception, there is a large, interesting literature on human preferences for symmetry (eg. facial). Perhaps our innate preference for symmetry also manifests as an appreciation for all those symmetrical flowers. But insect pollinators seem to prefer symmetry for reasons that are selectively advantageous - symmetrical flowers are better resources than asymmetrical ones. It isn't that the insects 'appreciate art', just that they know where to find a better meal. The upshot is - pretty flowers! Happy Spring! Chad > Many wildflowers are very beautiful, meaning that they have highly > developed > aesthetic values. Some of these traits, such as showy color, size, and > fragrance clearly give a flower great competitive advantage in attracting > pollinators. There are other aesthetic values-- composition and > symmetry-- for > which no competitive advantage is apparent. (To me, at least.) > > But, composition and symmetry (as artistic values) are highly developed > in > many wild flowers, and some of these are only pollinated by insects. > Should > we conclude from this that insects can "appreciate art," or is there some > other "scientific" explanation? Dare we allow a non-scientific > explanation? > > I understand that beauty and its recognition is a powerful selector in > man, > but I think I can confine the issue to just the flowers. > > Forgive me if ignorance has allowed me to bring up a question with an > easy > answer. > > Ernie Rogers > -- Chadwick V. Tillberg University of Illinois School of Integrative Biology ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: Can natural selection drive development of aesthetic values in wildflowers?
Ernie, Flower symmetry is effected by several interacting environmental and genetic facotrs. Creating a range from perfectly to bilaterally symmetrical flowers. Based on the environmental and genetic factors, symmetry or lack of can be attributed to developmental instability. Thus, how symmetrical a flower is may be a reliable cue of the flower's quality (eg if a flower exhibits a high level of symmetry, it may be true indicator of plant health and rewards/resources contained in the flower which are attracting insects). It is hard to tell though, if insects have the capabilities to detect fine -scalled differences in symmetry, (in order to push the natural selection of symmetric flowers). Maybe someone knows more about insect visual resolution? As you probably know, symmetry (if that (I would assume it is)) is not the only factor which attracts insects to flowers...bees, off hand are attracted to color, odor, UV and size...Some will even discriminate between the ages of flowers by the succession of color phases over time. Interesting question...I'd like to know more Aaron Heit University of Wisconsin -- River Falls [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Many wildflowers are very beautiful, meaning that they have highly > developed > aesthetic values. Some of these traits, such as showy color, size, and > fragrance clearly give a flower great competitive advantage in attracting > pollinators. There are other aesthetic values-- composition and > symmetry-- for > which no competitive advantage is apparent. (To me, at least.) > > But, composition and symmetry (as artistic values) are highly developed > in > many wild flowers, and some of these are only pollinated by insects. > Should > we conclude from this that insects can "appreciate art," or is there some > other "scientific" explanation? Dare we allow a non-scientific > explanation? > > I understand that beauty and its recognition is a powerful selector in > man, > but I think I can confine the issue to just the flowers. > > Forgive me if ignorance has allowed me to bring up a question with an > easy > answer. > > Ernie Rogers
Can natural selection drive development of aesthetic values in wildflowers?
Many wildflowers are very beautiful, meaning that they have highly developed aesthetic values. Some of these traits, such as showy color, size, and fragrance clearly give a flower great competitive advantage in attracting pollinators. There are other aesthetic values-- composition and symmetry-- for which no competitive advantage is apparent. (To me, at least.) But, composition and symmetry (as artistic values) are highly developed in many wild flowers, and some of these are only pollinated by insects. Should we conclude from this that insects can "appreciate art," or is there some other "scientific" explanation? Dare we allow a non-scientific explanation? I understand that beauty and its recognition is a powerful selector in man, but I think I can confine the issue to just the flowers. Forgive me if ignorance has allowed me to bring up a question with an easy answer. Ernie Rogers ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
