Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nectar in response

i definitely agree that it would've been nice to have images in the book as it was hard to get a sense of exactly how well Boquila was mimicking neighbouring plants!

but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned briefly in your linked article)

[flagged]

Another possibility is that this is a non-conscious trait. Luring pollinators is an evolutionary advantage, but there is survival cost to giving nectar indiscriminately, so natural selection will favor plants that can mechanically differentiate between the two.

"... so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them"

This sounds like a really wild take. Just because something has been evolving for millions of years doesn't necessarily mean it's evolving information processing capabilities. It's patently obvious to me that the information processing capabilities of animals (eg. just vision alone) are far beyond those of plants.

> Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have

That is true. And look how different we’ve become.

> and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them

That’s quite a leap. I think precisely because plants and animals have evolved separately for so you can’t make that assumption. Maybe plants hasn’t not simply because they don’t need to, as a fundamental consequence of their differing physiology.

This would make things quite complicated for vegans.

Some carpenter bees will bite straight through the flower bypassing the stamens and stigma.

Sometimes it's just an anatomy mismatch - like very small bee species and big open flowers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nectar_robbing

Take a look at the Flowerpiercers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowerpiercer

They're true parasites, piercing the flower to drink nectar without any chance of pollination.

The most common example are ants. Moths are often guilty of this as well.

I'd guess hummingbirds.

Seems like this is not _the_ paper but (as you write yourself) _a_ paper dealing with the same question. I assume that _the_ paper will provide further insights otherwise the presentation wouldn't be justified.

The examples there are for direct contact - feeling not hearing.

The way I see it, it's just a matter of terminology: When we detect vibrations through the air (“sound waves”) we call it hearing, and humans have dedicated organs to accomplish the task. When vibrations are detected (i.e., felt) in solid stuff, they're just called vibrations.

Not really. There are literally hundreds. They mostly bring on and interview science experts from recent discoveries. Whatever is interesting, recent, and relevant. The vast majority of it is under the radar and having the discoverers come and talk about their work is usually very interesting. I listen almost every week. They take the summer off.

cancel culture is out of control these days

In my opinion, “I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live that you are” is unethical. But then again, I also chose a plantbased diet.

It is impossible for more complex organism to live on Earth and not feast on other organisms, so you could say I should avoid eating plants too. Correct, but since I cannot avoid killing other beings, I have chosen the path of less overall suffering.

Noting that the researchers use terms as 'responds to vibroacoustic signals' rather than the term 'hear' used in the article of the post. Hearing to me implies some kind of auditory processing, this seems to be a more passive 'biomechanical' response.