Biology-Fans , the Post-Question above is specifically referring to plants/trees that have evolved to trap , ensnare , poison , or even run down large animals . This meaning those above the size of geckos , hummingbirds or mice .

Nature abhors a vacuum , and given an ecological niche being unutilized in a specific environment , will often make do by altering , through natural-selection , a species normally incapable of filling that niche .

The above applies both to the Kingdoms of Plantea and Animalia , but with minimal crossover between the two . However , as always there are exceptions . The most obvious and well-known of these would be the carnivorous plants ; pitcher-plants , fly-traps , and honeydews for example . Less well-known known are those which kill various creatures , but do not directly "eat" them. These are the protocarnivores, plants which indirectly absorb nutrients from the bodies of their victims .

The question of whether large animals poisoned by plants/trees , and dying where their roots can gain sustenance from the nutrients leaching through the ground into their roots , qualify as victims of protocarnivorous plants , is currently the topic of much debate . Similarly , this question also applies to large creatures entangled in thorny brambles , and dying if they can't escape .

Non of the abovementioned scenarios involve highly mobile plants , however , the capabilities of some known plants to engage in sudden motions indicate that a series of coordinated movements , even by larger plants and trees , could well be possible . This could even encompass what we would call "running" ; a series of powerful action propelling an entity across a stretch of surface at speed .

If a plant/tree could make evolutionary changes of this magnitude , then tying prey up in it's branches would definitely be doable .

If the above predation paradigm were to actually become extant , then the issue of speedy absorption of the prey's nutrients becomes paramount . Just as animal-predators need to feed before any of their competitors can steal their prey , plant-predators would also need to adopt fast-feeding strategies and equipment .

Given the complete absence of digestive-systems in most plants , but their ability to absorb nutrients in liquid form , the most likely strategy they would employ would be to quickly and forcibly remove the victim's nutrients from their body .

The best example available in nature for this is that of spiders ; they inject digestive enzymes into their victims , this dissolving their soft-tissues, and enabling the predators to suction-out the resultant slurry , often crushing the prey's body in the process of feeding .

*No evidence of such macropredadory plants has yet been found , however , given the vast scope of space , it is likely that the above has already come into being somewhere in the cosmos . These "Running-Trees" are doubtless out there , and future explorers of exoplanets would be well-advised to be aware of this shocking possibility . 🤓

https://photos.app.goo.gl/mFg3pav8g8FkoU3X6

Edited August 9Aug 9 by Professor-M
Entire post was links to the same photo ; this now addressed .

12 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Biology-Fans , the Post-Question above is specifically referring to plants/trees that have evolved to trap , ensnare , poison , or even run down large animals . This meaning those above the size of geckos , hummingbirds or mice .

Nature abhors a vacuum , and given an ecological niche being unutilized in a specific environment , will often make do by altering , through natural-selection , a species normally incapable of filling that niche .

The above applies both to the Kingdoms of Plantea and Animalia , but with minimal crossover between the two . However , as always there are exceptions . The most obvious and well-known of these would be the carnivorous plants ; pitcher-plants , fly-traps , and honeydews for example . Less well-known known are those which kill various creatures , but do not directly "eat" them. These are the protocarnivores, plants which indirectly absorb nutrients from the bodies of their victims .

The question of whether large animals poisoned by plants/trees , and dying where their roots can gain sustenance from the nutrients leaching through the ground into their roots , qualify as victims of protocarnivorous plants , is currently the topic of much debate . Similarly , this question also applies to large creatures entangled in thorny brambles , and dying if they can't escape .

Non of the abovementioned scenarios involve highly mobile plants , however , the capabilities of some known plants to engage in sudden motions indicate that a series of coordinated movements , even by larger plants and trees , could well be possible . This could even encompass what we would call "running" ; a series of powerful action propelling an entity across a stretch of surface at speed .

If a plant/tree could make evolutionary changes of this magnitude , then tying prey up in it's branches would definitely be doable .

If the above predation paradigm were to actually become extant , then the issue of speedy absorption of the prey's nutrients becomes paramount . Just as animal-predators need to feed before any of their competitors can steal their prey , plant-predators would also need to adopt fast-feeding strategies and equipment .

Given the complete absence of digestive-systems in most plants , but their ability to absorb nutrients in liquid form , the most likely strategy they would employ would be to quickly and forcibly remove the victim's nutrients from their body .

The best example available in nature for this is that of spiders ; they inject digestive enzymes into their victims , this dissolving their soft-tissues, and enabling the predators to suction-out the resultant slurry , often crushing the prey's body in the process of feeding .

*No evidence of such macropredadory plants has yet been found , however , given the vast scope of space , it is likely that the above has already come into being somewhere in the cosmos . These "Running-Trees" are doubtless out there , and future explorers of exoplanets would be well-advised to be aware of this shocking possibility . 🤓

https://photos.app.goo.gl/mFg3pav8g8FkoU3X6

Re section highlighted, I was unaware of this debate. It sounds interesting. Can you link to some sources illustrating this debate?

On 8/9/2025 at 2:45 PM, Professor-M said:

Nature abhors a vacuum , and given an ecological niche being unutilized in a specific environment , will often make do by altering , through natural-selection , a species normally incapable of filling that niche .

That is not really the way it works. The Nature abhors vacuum quote is really a bit an inverse of the process. When we look at ecosystems, it almost always seems that there are no unoccupied niches (which, btw. is not quite correct, in multidimensional niches theory predicts that certain types of niches which is corroborated by empirical studies (e.g.. Walker and Valentine, Am Nat 1984 https://doi.org/10.1086/284322). The theory is not that suddenly species develop the ability to fill those niches, but rather that due to competition, niches will eventually be filled.

The key component here is direct competition, not the similarity in which they acquire their nutrients.

On 8/9/2025 at 2:45 PM, Professor-M said:

If a plant/tree could make evolutionary changes of this magnitude , then tying prey up in it's branches would definitely be doable .

Again, this is not how evolution work. A single entity or even a species does not make evolutionary changes. Evolutionary changes are factors resulting in a change of the gene pool (over time). That being said, the largest prey eaten by carnivorous plants includes birds and rats, though mostly opportunistically.

Mr. Exchemist , click the link , then read the paragraph discussing "Murderous-plants" . This is from a large thread in another Forum hotly debating this subject .

*I shan't link to another Forum .

Mr. CharonY , my perception is that ANY struggle for resources can , over time , lead to profound changes in the morphology and function of involved species .

If the absence of predators leads to an over-abundance of prey animals , many may become diseased or starve out . This may provide an unusual but steady supply of vital nutrients for the abovementioned plant-predators . Logically , over time those better-suited to take advantage of this supply will do better , and eventually outbreed those less-suited .

The end result ? "The Running-Tree" !! 🫡

1 hour ago, Professor-M said:

Mr. Exchemist , click the link , then read the paragraph discussing "Murderous-plants" . This is from a large thread in another Forum hotly debating this subject .

*I shan't link to another Forum .

Chat on a single internet forum is not evidence the subject is one “of much debate” in science. For that statement to be true, one would expect to find numerous research papers , or articles in the scientific press, supporting and contesting the theory or hypothesis.

You seem to be making up statements here.

3 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Mr. CharonY , my perception is that ANY struggle for resources can , over time , lead to profound changes in the morphology and function of involved species .

Again, that is a bit backwards. There are many reasons why gene pools change, including random events such as mutations but also just drift. There is on need for "struggle" of any sorts.

However, if there are loci under positive selection, then those are likely to enrich more in the population over time (and might eventually become fixed). All this can be associated with observable changes of traits, but there can also genetic changes without morphological changes.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Again, that is a bit backwards. There are many reasons why gene pools change, including random events such as mutations but also just drift. There is on need for "struggle" of any sorts.

However, if there are loci under positive selection, then those are likely to enrich more in the population over time (and might eventually become fixed). All this can be associated with observable changes of traits, but there can also genetic changes without morphological changes.

I'm not sure what we are dealing with here. "If the above predation paradigm to actually become extant" etc.

🤔 Regarding the disagreements within the botanical community ; these range from functional to taxonomic to phylogenetic to evolutionary .

Finding and sifting through bunches of botanical forums (such as in the above link) for such debates could take weeks , but searching-up "Botanical disagreements on carnivorous plants" will give you quick results .

*Example of major scholarly debate regarding plant carnivory : https://photos.app.goo.gl/vWTGB8rH7Pxamj2PA

Edited August 11Aug 11 by Professor-M
Elucidation

4 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

🤔 Regarding the disagreements within the botanical community ; these range from functional to taxonomic to phylogenetic to evolutionary .

Finding and sifting through bunches of botanical forums for such debates could take weeks , but searching-up "Botanical disagreements on carnivorous plants" will give you quick results .

Post some examples then, to substantiate what you are claiming. Don’t try to send your readers off to find substantiation, themselves, for your claim.

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm not sure what we are dealing with here. "If the above predation paradigm to actually become extant" etc.

The way it reads seems to be that if there is a resources something will somehow gain the ability to access it. It seems to be somewhat Lamarckian but an overall misunderstanding how (and on which level) evolution works.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

The way it reads seems to be that if there is a resources something will somehow gain the ability to access it. It seems to be somewhat Lamarckian but an overall misunderstanding how (and on which level) evolution works.

Yes it was more the excessively flowery language: "paradigm" when it is just a scenario, "become extant"when it means occur or come to pass. I dunno but we seem to get a lot of posts now with this kind of grandiose verbiage.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes it was more the excessively flowery language: "paradigm" when it is just a scenario, "become extant"when it means occur or come to pass. I dunno but we seem to get a lot of posts now with this kind of grandiose verbiage.

I don't think that this is new per se. It was quite common that folks adopted a poorly understood verbiage that they have seen used in scientific context in order to provide their arguments with some gravitas without doing the actual footwork.

Or to put it differently:

The phenomenon under scrutiny does not, in a rigorous epistemological sense, constitute a novel emergence. Historically, there exists a demonstrable proclivity among lay interlocutors to appropriate lexemes and syntactic constructions ostensibly derived from scientific discourse. This semiotic transference is frequently executed with minimal hermeneutic engagement, serving primarily to imbue their rhetorical postulates with an illusory veneer of empirical legitimacy, absent any substantive methodological substantiation or evidentiary corroboration.

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that this is new per se. It was quite common that folks adopted a poorly understood verbiage that they have seen used in scientific context in order to provide their arguments with some gravitas without doing the actual footwork.

Or to put it differently:

The phenomenon under scrutiny does not, in a rigorous epistemological sense, constitute a novel emergence. Historically, there exists a demonstrable proclivity among lay interlocutors to appropriate lexemes and syntactic constructions ostensibly derived from scientific discourse. This semiotic transference is frequently executed with minimal hermeneutic engagement, serving primarily to imbue their rhetorical postulates with an illusory veneer of empirical legitimacy, absent any substantive methodological substantiation or evidentiary corroboration.

Heh heh. Very good. You’re a pro. 😁

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The phenomenon under scrutiny does not, in a rigorous epistemological sense, constitute a novel emergence. Historically, there exists a demonstrable proclivity among lay interlocutors to appropriate lexemes and syntactic constructions ostensibly derived from scientific discourse. This semiotic transference is frequently executed with minimal hermeneutic engagement, serving primarily to imbue their rhetorical postulates with an illusory veneer of empirical legitimacy, absent any substantive methodological substantiation or evidentiary corroboration

LMAO. Your parodic juxtaposition of hyperbolized semantic amplifications with normative domains of memetic architecture has provided a bracing reset of our lexical window on all matters of multitiered discourse across indeterminate gradients of knowledge!

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

Your parodic juxtaposition of hyperbolized semantic amplifications with normative domains of memetic architecture has provided a bracing reset of our lexical window on all matters of multitiered discourse across indeterminate gradients of knowledge!

Exactly! My words.... Eh? 😉

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

LMAO. Your parodic juxtaposition of hyperbolized semantic amplifications with normative domains of memetic architecture has provided a bracing reset of our lexical window on all matters of multitiered discourse across indeterminate gradients of knowledge!

Let me guess; you have seen the writing on the wall and are retraining to be an AI chatbot.😄

@exchemist Your deeply incisive and acutely perceptive observation casts a brutally honest light on this topic and reminds us how the rapid transformation of the jobs market will reshape our learning goals and aspirations across almost all disciplines.

😬

(perhaps man eating plants can fit well into this societal shift, consuming the now large numbers of superfluous workers)(see, we're back to topic!)