Skip navigation.

Active members

Orchid flowers that look like insects

Last post 09-05-2009 8:46 PM by Phot's-Moll. 14 replies.

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)

  • 19/01/2009 01:21 PM
    • miranda
    • Oxfordshire
    • 17 Nov 2004
    • 2,976
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    I'm not sure if this is the sort of question you're looking for but, I see that Dr Simon Thornton-Wood, the Director of Science & Learning, is going to be about so maybe he'll have something to say.

    It's a question that's been on my mind for a while and it would be interesting to know an expert thinks:

     

    Orchids are known for flowers that resemble insects and spiders (for example - the bee orchid,  Ophrys apifera). Bee orchids can self-pollinate, so the plant doesn't really need to look like a bee. As far as I've read, the bee that the orchid has changed itself to resemble doesn't even visit the UK.

    But, if resembling a pollinating insect was necessary in the past for the plant species to propagate and survive, then how come it didn't die out before those changes occurred? And, if it isn't necessary, then why did they do it in the first place? The question that vexes me the most is how an orchid can know what changes it needs to make in order to look like a bee. How can a plant know what a bee looks like?

    Thanks!

    Miranda  

     

  • 20/01/2009 09:38 AM
    Top 500 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    I suspect there is a PhD-length answer to this one, but in short, I would say that one has to be careful about giving a sense of directed purpose to the process of evolution. If you accept Darwin's view of the process, a small number of the myriad variations in nature will prove successful. Orchids are not the only example of highly specific co-evolution becoming redundant, with the 'partner' species disappearing.

    Now, I am absolutely certain that someone else will be able to give a wonderfully concise and more illuminating answer!

    Simon

    Simon Thornton-Wood
    Director of Science & Learning
  • 20/01/2009 10:07 AM
    Top 500 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    I can't resist adding that 2009 is a special year for commemorating Darwin. Orchid evolution was a specialist interest for Darwin, resulting in the publication of his work on the subject - the 'Fertilisation of Orchids'.

    In the Lindley Library, we have recently identified a previously unknown original drawing of Darwin, reported recently in the pages of The Garden. Entirely appropriate for our collection, given the importance of horticulture to the development of his thinking.

    Simon

    Simon Thornton-Wood
    Director of Science & Learning
  • 20/01/2009 10:16 AM
    • miranda
    • Oxfordshire
    • 17 Nov 2004
    • 2,976
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    Thank you for your reply, Simon. Granted, it is a lot of question in one post. I'll cut it down to the most annoying bit:

    How can a plant know what a bee looks like? I mean, where would a plant begin?

    Any thoughts? 

  • 20/01/2009 10:22 AM
    • Ant
    • Berkshire
    • 20 Jan 2009
    • 13
    Top 500 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    Or does the bee adapt to look more like the flower? Maybe the Great Designer had a hand in it!

  • 20/01/2009 10:56 AM
    Top 100 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    I am not sure there is a final answer to this.  The Members’ Advisory Service get a surprising number of questions to which there seems no answer, but we are not fazed as we have access to the excellent RHS libraries* and also help from our expert Wisley botanists**.  This association, officially called ‘pseudocopulation’ involves not just appearances but also chemical attractants.  Experts consider that it was the scent that was initially most important and flower form developed later.  Orchids produce attractants highly specific to a species and even to gender within that species. Once a specific attractant evolved it seems likely that flower morphology followed.

    Under evolution one would assume that repeated fertilisation by bees over many generations led to success of those orchids that developed the most attractive scents and bee-like appearance.  Initially the flower and chemical attractants would not be very bee-like, but more bee-like characteristics arising by chance would be preferentially selected for.  Those plants that best fooled bees would set more seed. It seems that a crucial factor is that the hairs on the orchid match the hairiness of female bees encouraging the correct positining of the males. Ultimately the remarkably insect-like flowers seen today would arise. 

    Although bee pollination appears to occur in the Mediterranean, bee orchids in Britain rely on self-pollination and insects play little part.  This suggests that the bee orchid has never set complete store by insect pollination, but uses insect pollination for long-range pollination to increase chances of cross-fertilisation – it is well-known that organisms go a long way for a mate. This would increase out-crossing and therefore genetic diversity.

    It should not be surprising that bee orchids have an alternative self-pollinating mechanism.  If they were too clever at fooling bees, the bees would die out.  In fact it appears that male bees will prefer a real lady bee as opposed to the orchid flower given the choice, so it may be that early hatching males who are on the wing before female bees are the ones most often deceived.

    This is just a brief outline of how we see the development of bee orchids. 

    Guy Barter

     

    *The Natural History of Pollination, (1996) Michael Proctor, Peter Yeo and Andrew Lack,  HarperCollins, London

    ** Dr Dawn Edwards

    RHS Members' Advisory Service
  • 20/01/2009 12:16 PM
    • miranda
    • Oxfordshire
    • 17 Nov 2004
    • 2,976
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

     Interesting reply, Guy, thank you for taking the time to write it. The Natural History of Pollination sounds like a fascinating book and one that I shall put on my wish list.

    It makes sense to me that a plant's flowers will gradually evolve to resemble a pollinator but I wonder how it started - guess it would just be interesting to be there when that first mutation occurred. It interests me that a plant can put all that effort into looking like a pollinator when it doesn't really need to. 

    As for male bees preferring real lady bees, I should jolly well think so too! Wink 

     

  • 20/01/2009 06:47 PM
    Top 500 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    Rules of thumb for understanding Nature

     

     

    Number one, drop the word "know " when talking about plants.

     

    In all living things growth and reproduction run parallel.

    There are many instances of twists an turns and overlaps but for clarity think of two paths.

    There are two sorts of cell - germ cells and soma cells, there must have been a lot of research done since I picked up that information, it clouds the issue, think of germ cells as motor cells and soma cells as the rest. The motor cells are the ones with the energy for reproduction, they are responsible for the growth of the plant in the growth channel. As they are replaced the old cells become "cast off motor cells".

    Of the two systems the reproductive side has first refusal on any cast off motor cells, and in a time of dearth will use energy cells from any source whatever. In fact I think plants incorporate motor cells from any source all the time.

    The DNA blueprint of the motor cells can be simplified to the latent energy contained within that structure. There is no energy to expand beyond the weaker of the two dna blueprints if they are different.

    Here it helps to think of a knitting pattern and a shortage of wool, some things will be missing. Maybe even the other way round, you have all the wool you want but only the energy to knit, say something the size of a bee in the case of your orchids.

    So all in all it`s been too many dead bee cells in their diet that created the similarity originally and has been passed on unchanged as they turned out to be survivors.

    Has this been of any help with your question - It`s a very simplified rationalisation, there are too many experts to split hairs on this subject, feed their opinions into the appropriate paragraphs of the above bullet list and carry on regardless whether its wide of the mark or not.

     

     

     

     

     

  • 20/01/2009 07:59 PM
    • Digger
    • Northern UK
    • 18 Jul 2005
    • 4,743
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    WTF?Hmm

    digger Devil
  • 20/01/2009 09:58 PM
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    ?

    Beware the bat-eared bogweevil
  • 21/01/2009 02:12 PM
    Top 100 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    Miranda, re: The Natural History of Pollination sounds like a fascinating book and one that I shall put on my wish list.

    Please be aware that you, assuming that you are an RHS  member, can borrow books by post if necessary from the RHS Libraries: http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/library/

    If you search the catalogue with 'natural history pollination' You will see that we keep one copy as a reference in the staff library, but two are available for loan, including one at Harlow Carr:

     The natural history of pollination / Michael Proctor, Peter Yeo and Andrew Lack 
        

    Holdings

    London
      Copy Material Location Item ID
    581.162 PRO 1 London Lending Stock Upper Reading Room London 54053000251433
    Harlow Carr
      Copy Material Location Item ID
    581.162 PRO 1 Book Garden Library 54053000715437
    Wisley
      Copy Material Location Item ID
    581.162 PRO 1 Staff Book Science Library 54053000510200

     

    Guy Barter

    RHS Help and Advice

    RHS Members' Advisory Service
  • 21/01/2009 02:13 PM
    Top 100 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

     

    RHS Members' Advisory Service
  • 21/01/2009 05:39 PM
    • miranda
    • Oxfordshire
    • 17 Nov 2004
    • 2,976
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

    I didn't know that, Guy. That's really handy, thanks for telling me.  

  • 09/05/2009 04:03 PM
    • Boc
    • Ballymoney
    • 09 May 2009
    • 4
    Not Ranked
    Locked Reply | Contact

    How can a plant know what a bee looks like? I mean, where would a plant begin?

     

    Sorry for coming into this thread so late Miranda - I've only just joined the forum.

    Part of the answer is that the plant 'knows' nothing.  Natural selection influences whether a mutation spreads through a species or not.

    For the rest of the answer, I'll refer you to my favourite author on these sort of things, Richard Dawkins.  Two books spring to mind - Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker.

    It may also be useful to think a bit wider.  There is the assumption that the natural selection pressure has come from the pollinator.  But insect vision is different from human vision (bees can't see red and can see ultraviolet), so the flower may not look like a bee to real bee!  It may be that a flower which looks like a bee to a mammal is less likely to be grazed, and survives better than other flowers for that reason.

  • 09/05/2009 08:46 PM
    • Phot's-Moll
    • The sunny South coast.
    • 06 Jan 2007
    • 3,347
    Top 10 Contributor
    Locked Reply | Contact

     Maybe some orchids adapted to look like other creatures, but the ones that attracted giraffes and elephants got squashed and died out and only the ones that looked like bees survived?

    I don't think the orchids do know what bees look like or deliberately change themselves to attract bees, it's just that the ones that happen to have done that are the ones that were most often pollinated.

    Whether you think you can do a thing, or think you cannot, you are right.