Botanical Wednesday: Doesn’t look a day over 25,000 to me
February 29th, 2012 by PZ Myers
This is a plant germinated from 32,000 year old tissue recovered from permafrost. I’ll take their word for it, but I’d still like to see some ID.
(via NatGeo)
(Also on FtB)
Posted in Organisms | 26 comments
Previous post: I deserve to be flogged
Next post: Unnatural shenanigans
Brownian:
February 29th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
So, if this plant grew from dirt, then why is there still—fuck it, that wasn’t going to be anywhere near as funny as I’d hoped.
StevoR:
February 29th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Well, I’m no judge of age then! Looks like it could’ve sprouted just a few weeks or so ago to me.
That’s one seriously impressive achievement when you think about the length of time the seeds have been frozen for.
Rip Steakface:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Wait for Kirk Cameron to see this. He’ll be talking about crocoflowers in no time.
Glen Davidson:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
No you wouldn’t.
Trust me, ID is stupid.
Glen Davidson
feralboy12:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Or claiming that it proves the timeline in Genesis.
madbull:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
A resurrection ! Botanical Jeebuz, a miracle !
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
PZ, the ScienceBlogs link at the bottom should read “Also on SB” instead of “Also on FTB.”
Larry:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
How very Jurassic Park.
What could possibly go wrong?
keithpeterson:
February 29th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I’m curious. How much would these plants differ from their current wild counterparts on the genetic level?
4004bc:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Today a pretty little plant from seeds in a frozen squirrel burrow…
Tomorrow Triffids, my visions for the future are working at last.
Now all we need is the croco-mammoth to keep these little plants in check…
Zugswang:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Jerry Coyne posted about this a few days ago; it’s a really cool study done by some Russian scientists, and these ancient plants have managed to produce offspring, as well.
The only thing the study was missing was an attempt to cross it with its modern-day descendants.
craigore:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
32000 years old???? Do you actually mean that one day I can have my very own pet wooly mammoth?!
shala:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
B-but Satan must have planted it to fool scientists!
John Morales:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
craigore @12, sure, as soon as someone finds a viable woolly mammoth seed.
charlesinsandiego:
February 29th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Mmmm . . .
Looks tasty.
. . . wish I were a mammoth . . .
JohnnieCanuck:
February 29th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Not only that, but its descendants appear to have evolved over the time span it was frozen.
Note that they didn’t manage to germinate the seeds directly. They found viable tissue attached to the embryo and cultured it.
Lots more info at the link to Jerry Coyne’s
blogwebsite.chrisplount:
February 29th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
I see a pretty little white flower but I hear Christopher Plummer singing in the Alps. Of course I’m three large Scotches into the evening…so there’s that.
nemothederv:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:35 am
@17
“Blossom of snow may you bloom and grow, bloom and…”
Wait, you mean it’s not an Edelweiss?
It’s a weed that
grows…grew…grows in Siberia?Meh. Guess I’ll put the curtains back up.
kieran:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:36 am
I’d want to see the genetics as well, plus I get the feeling I’ll need to learn the method as it’s going to be used by creationists to show that plants could survive a global flood.
catnip67:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:56 am
As long as its not a global flood of mammoth seed.
Did I say that out loud?
Oh…er…
What’s in this wine?
Bertil Wennergren:
March 1st, 2012 at 3:19 am
This clearly shows that the Bible is right, and science wrong. The fact that the seeds did germinate proves that they can’t be as old as 32.000 years, but at the most 6.000.
Please note that the above is just a preview of what will soon be read on all godbot blogs.
Giliell, not to be confused with The Borg:
March 1st, 2012 at 4:26 am
I have been wondering why this hasn’t shown up here earlier.
I was fascinated when I heard it on the news.
I’m waiting for the seeds appearing in the gardening store, I want one.
grumpypathdoc:
March 1st, 2012 at 1:12 pm
craigore@#12 I heard they are already thinking of doing the mammoth project (no pun intended). You know how that would turn out.
I haven’t heard what the comparable current species of that plant might be, thought I think I’ve seen similar flowers at our local botanical garden, if not in the wild.
Any botanists out there?
David Marjanović:
March 1st, 2012 at 1:26 pm
That’s all explained in the paper.
DLC:
March 1st, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Of course that plant material isn’t 32,000 years old. I mean, sure, it could survive the flood and all, if conditions were right. . . but you just know they can’t carbon date it accurately. . .
Okay, I’ve had my coffee now. Brain started up and in gear. what did I write ? Oh, my! Creationism, while I was still half asleep! This is serious. Previously I only denied the existence of Hawking radiation while I was still half asleep. I’m going to have to see my doctor about this.
craigore:
March 4th, 2012 at 4:14 am
@John & Grumpy
I’m hearing a 6 year time frame between now and first clone. Have to admit, it’s got me feelin’ pretty giddy.