Burgy wrote:
> The article described a certain species of insect, one not common to our
> locale. The thesis of the article was that the young offspring of this
> insect normally fed on a certain plant (#1), but sometimes fed on a
> different plant (#2). Those feeding on plant #1 grew to adulthood and
> looked like X. Those that fed on plant #2 grew to adulthood and
> looked like
> Y. There was, as I remember, no resemblence at all in bodyplan between X
> and Y -- they looked like entirely different species, as
> different, say, as
> grasshoppers and ants.
>
> Experiments were conducted on siblings, dividing a batch of offspring into
> two parts and feeding each of them a different plant -- the phenomen was
> verified completely.
>
> I don't recall at all if the subject of "phyla" was addressed in the
> article. What was apparent was that (looking at the photos) the two
> resulting groups could not, by any stretch, be looked at as the
> same animal
> -- or even remotely related to one another. The food ingested had almost
> completely determined the adult form.
>
> I think this sort of supports the thesis in your paper, but it complicates
> it somewhat. I always wondered if other experiments were undertaken (using
> other food sources for the young insects) to see if other bodyplans would
> result.
I would like to know what article this is from. (For Roman, Burgy is one of
my best English editors). :-)
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 17:12:07 EDT