History of Taxonomy

Science creates categories and classification systems to make sense of the natural world. In the case of living organisms, which include millions of species that evolved through several billions of years of Earth history, and whose characteristics (especially fossil species) and evolutionary relationships are often imperfectly understood, classification becomes arbitrary. Add to this the fact that specialists working in different fields may have different approaches or preferences, and it is easy to see how the subject can become confusing, and ideas and methodologies have changed radically over time.

Aristotle was the first to give the first detailed classification of living things. His classification of animals was:

Blooded (vertebrates)
Viviparous quadrupeds (land mammals)
Birds
Oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians)
Fish
Cetaceans (Aristotle did not realize their mammalian nature)
Bloodless (invertebrates)
Land arthropods (insects, arachnids, myriapods)
Aquatic arthropods (mostly crustaceans)
Shelled animals (shelled mollusks, echinoderms, etc.)
Soft animals (cephalopods, etc.)
Plant animals (cnidarians, etc., which superficially resemble plants)

However, he had made no effort to classify plants or fungi. His ideas were essentially based on the idea of the scala naturae, the “Natural Ladder” according to which the entire natural world could be arranged in a single continuum. During the medieval period, this became incorporated into the idea of the Great Chain of Being.

Classical and medieval thinkers used logical and philosophical categories, but these were based on the most general principles, and while perhaps useful for abstract philosophy, were not much use in understanding the natural world. In the theocratic Middle Ages, this didn’t matter much, but with the progressive advance of knowledge during the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the Enlightenment, there developed an interest in the secular world for its own sake. Botanists especially were fascinated by exoteric new plants discovered during the voyages of exploration. It is not coincidental then that the father of modern biological classification was a botanist, Carl Linne, better known by his Latin name Linnaeus. Linnaeus’s simple yet brilliant idea was to distinguish nomenclature – the science of naming – from description. He, therefore, rejected the long-winded descriptive names of plants used by his predecessors and contemporaries and replaced them with a simple two-name system, a generic and a specific (think surname and given name, e.g. Smith, John). These were then grouped in hierarchies such as class, order, and so on. With only slight refinements, the Linnaean system is the scientific, biological classification system still used today.

Scientists and naturalists like Linnaeus in Sweden, and later the anatomist and naturalist Georges Cuvier in France, and Owen in England, and their colleagues and co-workers, established in the 18th and early 19th century the science of what we now know as Taxonomy. Taxonomy is concerned with discovering, identifying, describing, and naming organisms. For this to work it requires institutions to hold collections of these organisms, with relevant data, carefully curated: such institutes include Natural History Museums, Herbaria, and Botanical Gardens. Richard Owen for example established the British Museum of Natural History in London, where his statue still resides.

Linnaeus, like his 18th-century contemporaries, had a static, biblical view of the world. All the species that existed and that he described were the same as those created by God, and every species that ever lived was still alive today. This simple worldview was undermined in the late 18th and early 19th century by the discovery of fossil species different from anything alive. This led to the birth of paleontology, under men like Cuvier and Owen. Cuvier, the father of paleontology, who was the first to name and correctly identify many fossil animals (e.g.: Pterodactylus, Mosasaurus, Didelphys, Palaeotherium) was still a creationist but explained the existence of strange armoured fish, ichthyosaurii, tertiary mammals, mastodons, and the rest in terms of repeated catastrophies, after which God would recreate the world. The biblical flood was considered the most recent of these catastrophes.

Owen, who named the order (now superorder) Dinosauria, instead adopted a Goethean concept of evolving archetypes (but not of physical evolution; Owen was strongly opposed to Darwin’s theory when it came out). By these sorts of mechanisms, Cuvier and Owen could explain the existence of antediluvial (before the flood) monsters. All this changed with Darwin’s discovery of the principle of evolution. Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel established the evolutionary paradigm, and, like Cuvier and Owen, had no problem identifying prehistoric life with Linnaean categories. What evolution did was to make the Linnaean system more dynamic? Thus, Huxley was able to show that Archaeopteryx, the first bird (Class Aves) was also a transitional form between reptiles (Class Reptilia) and modern birds. This synthesis of Darwinian science and Linnaean taxonomy was further elaborated on in the mid-20th century by vertebrate paleontolgists Romer and Simpson and came to be later known as Evolutionary Systematics

In the 1980s, an alternative to Evolutionary Systematics, called Phylogenetic Systematics, or Cladistics became popular, especially among vertebrate paleontologists. Cladistics is more properly considered under the next Unit, Phylogeny. The central difference between the Linnaean and Cladistic systems is that one is a taxonomic, classification system, the other a means of constructing phylogenetic hypotheses; or in less jargonesque language, deciding which of several possible evolutionary trees is likely to be the more correct one (which doesn’t mean it is the right one, as discoveries can always overturn the current hypotheses) [1]. Over the past few years, an attempt has been made to develop a formal, cladistic system of taxonomy and nomenclature to replace the linnaean system, called the Phylo Code, but this is yet to catch on at a wider level in biology.

One might suppose that classification should reflect phylogeny, and that phylogeny would automatically result in a superior classification system, but this is not necessarily the case. Taxonomies may involve organisms that appear to be closely related but are not, phylogenies can result in unwieldy systems, or phylogenetic definitions can be overturned by discoveries and hypothesis Taxonomies can be overturned as well, but are generally more robust (Benton 2007).. The most reasonable approach therefore is to acknowledge the usefulness of both descriptive classification and phylogenetic hypotheses as two equally partial and complementary means of understanding the natural world. MAK120229

Notes:

[1] Contrary to popular belief, cladistics does not describe the actual evolutionary path of life. That is, it is not concerned with or describes the evolution of later organisms from common ancestors in the way that, say, Darwin or more recently Richard Dawkins do, and what the Evolutionary systematics of Romer and Simpson also describes. It simply provides a way of generating hypotheses regarding the way living organisms are related to each other. Cladograms, in other words, are not evolutionary trees. What cladistics does do is provide a more precise and verifiable method of creating hypotheses regarding the evolutionary relationships of past and current organisms (Phylogeny, a word invented in the late 19th century by Haeke), but used here ina somewhat different context).

 

 

 

I. The history of Biological Control may be divided into 3
periods:

A. The preliminary efforts when living agents were released 
haphazardly with no scientific approach. Little precise information
exists on successes during this time. Roughly 200 A.D. to 1887 A.D.;

B. The intermediate period of more discriminating BC started with
the introduction the Vedalia beetle, Rodolia cardinalis Mulsant, for
control of the cottony cushion scale in 1888. The period extended from 1888
to ca. 1955; and

C. The modern period is characterized by more careful planning and more
precise evaluation of natural enemies. The period from 1956 to the present.

II. Early History: 200 A.D. to 1887 A.D.

A. 200 A.D. to 1200 A.D: BC agents were used in augmentation

1. The Chinese were the first to use natural enemies to control insect pests.
Nests of the ant Oecophylla smaragdina were sold near Canton in the
3rd century for use in the control of citrus insect pests such as
Tesseratoma papillosa (Lepidoptera)

2. Ants were used in 1200 A.D. for control of date palm pests in Yemen
(south of Saudia Arabia). Nests were moved from surrounding hills
and placed in trees

3. Usefulness of ladybird beetles recognized in the control of aphids and scales
in 1200 A.D.

B. 1300 A.D. to 1799 A.D.: BC was just beginning to be recognized.

1. Aldrovandi noted the cocoons of Apanteles glomeratus on a parasitized
Pieris rapae in 1602 A.D., but thought cocoons were insect eggs

2. Vallisnieri interpreted the phenomenon of insect parasitism (parasitoid)
in 1706 A.D. However the honor of being the first to understand insect
parasitism may belong to the microbiologist Van Leeuwenhoek who
illustrated and discussed a parasite of a sawfly that feeds on willow in a
publication in 1701.

3. The first insect pathogen was recognized by de Reaumur in 1726. It
was a Cordyceps fungus on a noctuid

4. In 1734, de Reaumur suggested to collect the eggs of an “aphidivorous
fly” (actually a lacewing) and place them in greenhouses to control
aphids

5. The mynah bird, Acridotheres tristis, was successfully introduced from
India to Mauritius (off the coast of Madagascar) for control of the red
locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata, in 1762

6. In the late 1700s, birds were transported internationally for insect
control

7. Control of the bedbug, Cimex lectularius, was successfully
accomplished by releases of the predatory pentatomid Picromerus
Bidens in 1776 in Europe

C. 1800 A.D. to 1849 A.D. During this period advances were made in
Europe which was both applied and basic

1. In the 1800’s, Darwin discussed “Ichneumonids” as natural control
factors for cabbage caterpillars

2. Malthus (in England) published Essays on the Principles of
Population in 1803

3. Hartig (Germany) suggested the rearing of parasites from parasitized
caterpillars for mass releases in 1827

4. Kollar (Austria) put forth the concept of “natural control” in 1837

5. Verhulst (1838) described the logistic growth equation but the idea
lay dormant until 1920 when rediscovered by Pearl. Expressed
the idea of “environmental resistance”.

6. During the 1840s releases of predators were used for control of the
gypsy moth and garden pests in Italy

D. 1850 to 1887. During this time the focus on BC switched to the United
States.

1. From 1850 to 1870 enormous plantings of many crops were being
grown in the United States (especially California) and were initially
free of pests. Later farmers saw their crops destroyed by hordes of
alien pests

2. Asa Fitch (New York) suggested importing parasites from Europe
to control the wheat midge, Contarinia tritici, in 1856. No action
was taken. In 1860 parasites were requested from Europe, but none
were received

3. During this period, Benjamin Walsh (Illinois) actively worked
for the importation of natural enemies to control the exotic insects
in the United States but was unsuccessful. Fortunately, he
influenced Charles V. Riley greatly who was in Missouri during
Walsh’s campaign

4. The first practical attempt at BC of weeds occurred in 1863 when
segments of the prickly pear cactus, Opuntia vulgaris, infested with
the imported cochineal insect, Dactylopius ceylonicus, were
transported from northern to southern India

5. Riley conducted the 1st successful movement of parasites for
biological control when parasites were moved from Kirkwood,
Missouri, to other parts of the state for control of the weevil
Conotrachelus nenuphar in 1870

6. LeBaron transported apple branches infested with oyster-shell scale
parasitized by Aphytis mytilaspidis from Galena to Geneva,
Illinois in 1871

7. In 1873 Riley sent the predatory mite Tyroglyphus phylloxerae to
France to control the grape phylloxera. The mite was established
but did not exert control as hoped.

8. Trichogramma sp. (egg parasites) were shipped from the U.S. to
Canada for control of lepidopterous pests in 1882

9. In 1883 the USDA imported Apanteles glomeratus from England
for control of P. rapae (the imported cabbageworm). Parasites
were distributed in DC, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. First
intercontinental shipment of parasites.

III. The Intermediate Period: 1888 to 1955

A. 1888 to 1889: The Cottony Cushion Scale Project

1. Cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi Maskell, was introduced into
California in ca. 1868 around the Menlo Park (CA) area (near San
Francisco)

2. It spread to southern California and by 1887 was threatening to destroy
the infant citrus industry

3. C. V. Riley (Chief of the Division of Entomology, USDA) employed
Albert Koebele and D. W. Coquillett in research on control of the
cottony cushion scale

4. No method was working in 1887

5. Koebele was sent to Australia in 1888 to collect natural enemies of the
scale

6. He sent ca. 12,000 individuals of Cryptochaetum iceryae and 129
individuals of Rodolia cardinalis (the vedalia beetle)

7. Within the year, the cottony cushion scale ceased to be a substantial
pest

8. The vedalia beetle controls the scale mainly in the inland desert areas
and C. iceryae controls it in the coastal areas of California.

B. 1890 to 1899: Growing pains for BC

1. Following the success in 1889, California put pressure on Riley to
send Koebele back to Australia in search of parasites for other scales
parasites in California

2. Koebele went on foreign exploration, but on his return, he was recalled
from California. Koebele resigned from his position and went to work for
the Republic of Hawaii in 1893. He worked on BC projects in the
interest of Hawaii until 1912 when he retired due to ill health.

3. Due to the success of the Vedalia beetle, great emphasis was placed on
importation of coccinellids for BC initially in California and Hawaii. It
is believed that California was set back many years by promoting
mostly biological control projects and not researching alternative
control methodologies.

4. L. O. Howard replaced C. V. Riley as Chief of the Division of
Entomology, USDA in 1894. Howard was prejudiced against BC due to
the problems he saw in California

5. George Compere began as a foreign explorer for California in 1899

C. 1900 to 1930: New faces and more BC projects

1. The Gypsy Moth Project in New England (1905-1911). W. F. Fiske
was in charge in Massachusetts. Howard conducted foreign exploration
in Europe and arranged for parasites to be imported to the U.S. Many
prominent entomologists employed on the project: Harry Scott Smith,
W. R. Thompson, P. H. Timberlake.

2. The Lantana Weed Project in Hawaii (1902) First published work on
BC of weeds. Koebele went to Mexico and Central America looking
for phytophagus insects which were sent to R. C. L. Perkins in
Hawaii.

3. The Sugar-cane Leafhopper Project in Hawaii (1904-1920). Hawaiian
Sugar Planters Association (HSPA) created a Division of Entomology
in 1904. R. C. L. Perkins was appointed superintendent. The staff consisted of O. H.

Swezey, G. W. Kirkaldy, F. W. Terry, Alexander
Craw, and Albert Koebele. Later Frederick Muir was employed due to
Koebele’s health problems. Muir found the highly effective predator
Tytthus (= Cyrtorhinus) mundulus (Miridae) in Queensland, Australia,
in 1920.

4. Berliner described Bacillus thuringiensis in 1911 as the causative agent of
bacterial disease of the Mediterranean flour moth

5. Prof. H. S. Smith was appointed superintendent of California State
Insectary, Sacramento, CA, in 1913. The facility moved to the University
of California’s Citrus Experiment Station in 1923 (now UC Riverside).
Smith started another facility in Albany, CA, in 1945. Riverside and
Albany (UC Berkeley) is made up Department of Biological Control, UC.

6. The USDA Laboratory for Biological Control was established in France in 1919.

7. The Imperial Bureau of Entomology created the Farnham House
Laboratory for BC work in England in 1927. This was later directed by
W. R. Thompson in 1928.

D. 1930 to 1955: Expansion and decline of BC

1. From 1930 to 1940 there was a peak in BC activity in the world with
57 different natural enemies were established at various places.

2. World War II caused a sharp drop in BC activity.

3. BC did not regain popularity after WW II due to the production of
relatively inexpensive synthetic organic insecticides. Entomological
research switched predominantly to pesticide research.

4. In 1947 the Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control was
established from the Imperial Parasite Service. In 1951 the name was
changed to the Commonwealth Institute for Biological Control (CIBC).
Headquarters are currently in Trinidad, West Indies.

5. In 1955 the Commission Internationale de Lutte Biologique contre les
Enemis des Cultures(CILB) was established. This is a worldwide
organization with headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland. In 1962 the
CILB changed its name to the Organisation Internationale de Lutte
Biologique contre les Animaux et les Plants Nuisibles.
This organization is also known as the International Organization for
Biological Control (IOBC). Initiated the publication of the journal
“Entomophaga” in 1956, a journal devoted to biological control of
arthropod pests and weed species.

IV. The Modern Period: 1957 to Present.

A. In 1959, Vern Stern et al. (1959) conceived the idea of economic injury
level and economic threshold which would permit growers to make
informed decisions on when they needed to apply control tactices in their
cropping systems and therefore eliminated the need for scheduled pesticide
treatments.

B. Interest developed nationwide in ecology and the environment after 1962
with the publishing of the Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring.”

C. “Silent Spring” helped stimulate the implementation of the concept of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the late 1960’s, and biological
control was seen as a core component of IPM by some. More emphasis
was placed on conservation BC than classical BC.

D. In 1964, Paul DeBach and Evert I. Schliner (Division of Biological
Control, University of California, Riverside) publish an edited volume
titled “Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds” which becomes a major reference

source for the biological control community. This was a California-based book

with international application.

E. In some areas in the USA (e.g., California, North Carolina, Kansas,
Texas), IPM scouting was commercialized in the 1970’s and natural
enemies were relied upon to suppress pests in crops such as cotton,
alfalfa, citrus, soybeans, and other crops.

F. During the 1970s and 1980’s, Brian Croft and Marjorie Hoy made
impacts by using pesticide-resistant natural enemies in cropping systems.

G. In 1983, Frank Howarth published his landmark paper titled “Biological
Control: Panacea or Pandora’s Box” and significantly impacted classical
BC efforts by concluding that classical BC of arthropods significantly
contributed to extimction of desirable species (e.g., endemic).

1. This eventually forced a rethinking of legislative guidelines as well as
introduction methods which are still being changed today.

2. In Hawaii, BC efforts were diminished significantly and have not risen
to levels before 1985.

3. Research efforts into this area were stimulated with the general results
that many of Howarth’s claims were unjustified, but some impacts
were discovered. No species extinctions have been demonstrated to
have resulted from classical BC efforts to date.

H. In the 1990’s, two additional biological control journals appeared,
“Biological Control – Theory and Application in Pest Management”
(Academic Press) and “Biocontrol Science and Technology” (Carfax
Publishing). Additionally, “Entomophaga” changed its name to
“Biocontrol” in 1997.

 

 

Figs and their pollen carriers, fig-wasps have become very popular at least among biologists. Their relationship, in which we can see another extremely complicated relationship in nature, contains one of the hidden keys needed for solving the mysteries of co-evolution and the ecosystem.

This mutual relationship is believed to have begun about 90 million years ago, and approximately 750 varieties of figs (Ficus) now thrive. Amazingly, as a new kind of fig evolves, a fig-wasp corresponding to that new kind of fig appears. But a complicated co-evolution like this can be explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution, just as other happenings in nature can. His theory suggests that every creature evolves to leave the largest number of descendants in the next generation.

Plants, which have animals carry their pollen, offer the carriers a reward such as honey, or provide a carrier’s larva with a place to grow. Cabbage leaves rich in nutrition didn’t evolve to be a salad, but to be host food for larva of butterflies that carry cabbage pollen. Unfortunately, such larva become a horticulturist’s enemies.

The relationship between fig and fig-wasps in which an insect carries pollen and its larva eats the fruit is also seen in the cycad group and the yucca plant, a plant growing in arid areas in America. In this relationship, a contradictory relationship exists; that is, more pollen carriers are active more eggs are laid, and therefore more seeds are eaten even though the carriers help the plant bear fruit.

Fig flowers, which have the egg of a fig-wasp become a gall (an insect’s knot), food for larva, and fig flowers which don’t have an egg become seeds if they are pollinated. The number of female fig-wasps that develop into adults and fly out of the fig plant carrying pollen represents the number of carried pollen; that is, the adaptation rate of the male fig (the rate used to measure the size of the population of a certain genetic model in the next generation).

The number of seeds indicates the adaptation rate of a female fig. On the other hand, to become a host plant for male fig-wasps is fruitless for figs because male fig-wasps don’t have wings and can’t carry pollen. Therefore, figs don’t want to have too many male fig-wasps. Ideally, figs want to produce about the same number of female fig-wasps and seeds to create a balance between the number of female fig-wasps and fruit for themselves. On the other hand, fig-wasps want to lay as many eggs as possible to obtain the greatest possible benefit. Both the figs and fig-wasps co-exist by maintaining this subtly balanced relationship.

If the figs have a pollen carrier in all their flowers, no seeds will be left for the next generation. On the contrary, if figs reject pollen carriers too often, there won’t be enough pollen carried out for pollination. They both need to maintain this relationship. Some figs are heterosexual so male figs raise fig-wasps to carry pollen and female figs fruit seeds. Fig-wasps can’t mate in the female fig syconium, but the wasps can’t distinguish a male syconium from a female syconium. And the wasps that unfortunately come into a female syconium only help the fig pollinate.

Throughout the world, figs grow most abundantly in the forest of Ranbil on Borneo Island in Malaysia, and about 80 varieties of figs can be observed there. While we were studying there in 1998, there was a drought, and no fig flowers bloomed during that time. On that occasion, we made an interesting observation that fig-wasps came back right away as the flowers of the homosexual figs revived, but the wasps took two to three years to come back to the flowers of the heterosexual figs. Who knows when a change of weather in the tropical rainforest will create a new condition and give us clues to solve this mystery? I can’t take my eyes off the Ranbil forest.

 

 

 

Hard Chaparral

Chaparral covers about 8.5% of California and is the most characteristic natural vegetative type in the state. It reaches its fullest development in Southern California where it ranges in elevation between 1,000 and 5,000. Annual grasslands and coastal sage scrub occur along its lower limits and its upper limits border on mixed evergreen and coniferous forests. Various types of woodlands bisect hard chaparral in foothill areas and along canyon bottoms.

Chaparral bisected by grassland. The chaparral in the foreground shows a variety of plant species. Soft chaparral is the gray color on the distant hills, and hard chaparral is the dark green color.

The evergreen, stiffly branched shrubs of the true, or hard chaparral are mostly 3 – 10 feet tall. Leaves are small and leathery (sclerophyllous) with thick cuticles. Sometimes the leaves are so reduced as to appear needle-like e.g. Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). These are adaptations to reduce evapotranspiration during the dry summer months. Stands of mature chaparral form a dense, almost impenetrable layer with little or no herbaceous understory.

Hard chaparral occurs in a mosaic reflecting fire history. A twenty-year cycle of fire maintains a community of Chamise. In communities with less frequent or more regular burns, Chamise gives way to Ceanothus, mountain mahogany, Sumac, Toyon, and Manzanita . Dwarfed oaks and drought-resistant, closed-cone pines also occur.

Adaptations to drought

Rain generally falls over the winter months in a few intense storms. The effective moisture is drastically reduced by rapid runoff, low moisture retention by soils, high rates of evaporation, and the protracted rainless period each year. To survive, chaparral plants must be adapted to 5 – 6 inches of rain per year and a drought of 5 – 6 months in duration. The dominant species are mostly spring active – they photosynthesize and grow in the spring when after moisture from the winter rains has penetrated far enough into the soil to become available to their roots.

As soil moisture supplies become limited, usually by late June, most chaparral plants enter a summer dormancy phase and operate at 5% of their wet season maximums. The plants are most susceptible to fire at this time.

By retaining their leaves, plants of the hard chaparral are physiologically ready to take advantage of a rare summer thundershower. Within minutes of the moisture being absorbed by the roots, the plants will be photosynthesizing. Their evergreenness makes them opportunists who can use soil moisture as soon as it becomes available. The leaves of the evergreen sclerophyll do not wilt so no part of the new water supply needs to be spent in rehydrating the leaves to maximize light absorption.

Succession and Aging

For the chaparral community, disturbance = diversity. It rapidly recovers from disturbance by fire, erosion or man. Chaparral succession is unique in that it succeeds itself rather than being preceded by other vegetative types. However, grasslands will become the dominant community if the previously chaparral-covered area burns many times within a short period. This reduces the chance of regrowth from burls or from seeds germinating, growing to maturity, and casting their seeds. Tje area is also more prone to invasion from non-native colonizing species.

When a chaparral area is prevented from undergoing burns (because of its proximity to a city for example) the accumulated biomass is so great that when the fire eventually occurs it is hot enough to destroy the underground plant structures that would otherwise guarantee the chaparral’s succession by more chaparral. These underground plant structures include buds on woody tap roots (lignotubers), burls, and underground rhizomes. However, the seeds of the chaparral shrubs remain viable after high-intensity burns and the area will eventually again become a stand of mature chaparral.

Immediately after a disturbance the herbs and forbs initially dominate because of their sheer numbers and showy flowers. Within 2 – 5 years the seedlings of chaparral plants and the shrubs resprouting from their crown roots or burls take over. Their more aggressive root systems exploit deeper water reserves and they will eventually shade out the forbs and grasses and replace them.

Productive growth is maintained in the canopy in mature unburned stands of chaparral. Common plants such as scrub oak, toyon, and holly leaf cherry all require a leaf litter that is at least 30 years old before they will germinate successfully. When the fire interval is short, for example between 10 – 15 years, these shrubs may be eliminated and the whole chaparral system replaced by grassland. Plant growth does not occur under the chaparral canopy due to lack of light, the activity of herbivores, and the fact that the seeds contained in the ground covering leaf litter are dormant.

 

Poisoning from Elderberry Juice — California

On August 26, 1983, eight people with acute gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms were flown by helicopter to a Monterey, California, hospital. Earlier that day, they had attended a gathering for 25 persons of a religious/philosophic group in a remote area of Monterey County. Within 15 minutes after drinking refreshments, 11 persons began to have nausea and vomiting. The eight persons most ill reported nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and weakness. Some also complained of dizziness and numbness; one was stuporous and was hospitalized.

Arterial blood gases were normal for all eight, as were serum cyanide levels (reported later). The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Poison Control Center was promptly consulted regarding treatment for possible cyanide poisoning, but specific treatment was not given because 4 hours had elapsed since exposure, blood gases were normal, and the patients were stable. All recovered quickly, including the patient hospitalized overnight.

Investigation by the Monterey County Health Department revealed that staff at the religious center had gathered local, wild elderberries 2 days before the outbreak and had prepared juice from them the next day. Bunches of berries were crushed with their leaves and branches in a stainless-steel press.

Apple juice, water, and sugar were added, and the mixture was stored overnight. The drink was served the next day in a stainless-steel pot to the group of 25 persons. The severity of illness correlated with the amount of elderberry juice consumed; those who drank only tea remained well. The hospitalized person had consumed five glasses of the juice; the others, much less.

Editorial Note

Editorial Note: The indigenous elder tree of the western United States, Sambucus mexicana, can grow to 30 feet and produces small (1/4-inch), globular, nearly black berries that can be covered with a white bloom at maturity. The berries are juicy and edible when mature. The cooked berries are commonly eaten in pies and jams, and berry juice can be fermented into wine.

The fresh leaves, flowers, bark, young buds, and roots contain a bitter alkaloid and also a glucoside that, under certain conditions, can produce hydrocyanic acid. The amount of acid produced is usually greatest in young leaves. There may be other toxic constituents in this plant. The root is probably the most poisonous and may be responsible for occasional pig deaths; cattle and sheep have died after eating leaves and young shoots.

Although a review of the medical literature revealed no other reports of elderberry juice poisoning in the past 20 years, there are older, anecdotal reports of poisoning in children from the related elder, S. canadensis. The religious center staff has been advised that, while elderberries may be safe to consume, particularly if cooked (uncooked berries may produce nausea), leaves and stems should not be crushed when making juice.

Reported in California Morbidity (February 24, 1984) by S Kunitz, MD, RJ Melton, MD, T Updyke, Monterey County Health Dept, D Breedlove, PhD, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, SB Werner, MD, California State Dept of Health Svcs. Bibliography Casarett LJ, Doull J, eds. Toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1975. Kingsbury JM. Poisonous plants in the United States and Canada. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Millspaugh CF. American medicinal plants. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Muenscher WC. Poisonous plants of the United States. New York: Macmillan Company, 1951. Osol A, Farrar GE. The Dispensatory of the United States of America. 25th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1955. Pammel LH. A manual of poisonous plants. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press, 1911.

Marshmallows come from the sweet sap of the ‘Mallow’ Plant that grows in salty marshes near large bodies of water and grows 2 to 4 feet high.

Hence! MARSH + MALLOW = MARSHMALLOW

The ancient Egyptians used the mallow root for making their candied delicacies for their Gods, Nobility, and Pharaohs over 2000 years ago. Since it was a crime for anyone else to eat this sugar-like treat, children looked to honey and figs to cure their sweet tooth.

Egyptian marshmallows were a mixture of Mallow sap, honey, and grains and baked into cakes. The Romans and the Greeks loved the Mallow Plant; they believed that brewed mixtures of the Mallow sap cured soar throats and pains. The sugar mixture was found in Hippocrates’s medical treatments. During the 15th and 16th centuries, marshmallow liquids were given as treatments for toothaches, coughs sore throats indigestion, and diarrhea It was even believed to have been used as a love potion at this time.

It was the French during the 1800s that changed the use of the mallow plant from mainly medicinal to more of a candy consumed by adults. French shop owners discovered that cooking and whipping marshmallow sap with egg whites and corn syrup created an easily moldable substance. This is where the marshmallow as we know it today was born!

In the 1900’s marshmallows were being sold as penny candies in tiny tins. It was at this time that the Boyer Brothers, interested in growing their neighborhood business, started experimenting with marshmallow creme and tried to cover it in chocolate. After many unsuccessful attempts, their mother Emily suggested they put it in a paper cup, using the only thing that they had available- a paper cupcake holder. They tried once more, and… Success! The Mallo Cup was born!

“Do they still make Mallo Cups?” The answer to this is yes and will always be yes! Boyer Candy Company has been proudly making delicious nostalgic candy since the 1930s and has built up a reputation and history just as long and rich as the marshmallow history above! Mallo Cups were the very first cup candy produced in the United States and are still adored by people of all ages. The delicious combination of marshmallow and chocolate has made this nostalgic candy a favorite among all candy lovers.

Mallo Cups have given Boyer Candy Company its place in the wonderful marshmallow history timeline. This delicious and unique candy has been a popular part of candy history since its introduction many, many years ago and remains one of the most popular American-made candies still produced. Some might call Mallo Cups a retro candy, but something this delicious is timeless. Find Mallo Cups and more at BoyerCandies.com today.

Trees help to break down barren rocks into soil, but how does that work exactly? It turns out that tiny fungi living on the trees’ roots do most of the heavy work.

The fungi first bend the structure of certain minerals, weaken their crystals, and then remove any useful chemical elements to pass on to their host tree. During the process, the rocks change their chemistry, lose their strength, and in the long run, become soil.

These hard-working fungi are called mycorrhiza and cover the roots of trees like gloves. They are extremely small and thin, but they are everywhere: ‘it is estimated that every kilogram of soil contains at least 200 km of fungi strands,’ says Dr Steeve Bonneville, from the University of Leeds.

Bonneville explains: ‘Mycorrhiza has a perfect business relationship with plants and especially trees.’ They help the plant to get nutrients from the soil and in return, they receive part of the carbon produced during photosynthesis.

About 90 percent of tree roots in boreal forests have this symbiotic association with mycorrhiza.

Mycorrhiza plays a major role in soil formation, but how do they do it? ‘We created the first experiment that closely copies a natural system to find out how mycorrhiza helps to break down minerals,’ says Professor Liane G. Benning, the Leeds principal investigator of the project.

Together with colleagues at Sheffield, the team planted a Scots pine seedling with the fungi Paxillus involutus, a mycorrhiza species. ‘This is a very common tree-fungi association that occurs naturally in boreal forests,’ says Bonneville. The tree and fungi were allowed to grow together for about 10 weeks and were then placed in a transparent pot with flakes of biotite, a common rock-forming mineral rich in potassium, iron, and magnesium.

The seedling’s roots became covered with fungi, which soon attached to the biotite. After three months, the scientists removed the biotite from the experiment and sampled the crystal along a single strand of fungi-covered root from the tip, middle, and close to the root.

Bend first, steal later

‘The first change we observed in the biotite, at the tip of the mycorrhiza, was mechanical stress,’ says Benning. The fungi can apply pressure onto the minerals that can be as high as the pressure in an average car tyre. This pressure value is ‘very high’, for a tiny organism, but unsurprising to Bonneville: ‘These fungi evolved to penetrate minerals and rocks and some species are capable of even higher pressures.’

As a consequence of the pressure at the tip, the biotite starts to bend and lose its strength. ‘Once the crystal structure is weakened, the chemical changes start,’ explains Benning. The mycorrhiza then proceeds to remove the potassium and other useful nutrients from the biotite, passing them on to the roots and ultimately the tree. Without potassium, the biotite breaks down into vermiculite and ferrihydrate, two minerals common in soils.

The mechanism – bend the structure first, steal nutrients later – is an efficient way for the fungi to break down minerals and at the same time gather essential nutrients for its host tree, write the authors of the report, published in July’s edition of the journal Geology.

‘This is a significant advance on previous simplistic ideas of mineral breakdown,’ says Benning.

S. Bonneville, M.M. Smits, A. Brown, J. Harrington, J.R. Leake, R. Brydson and L.G. Benning. Plant-driven fungal weathering: Early stages of mineral alteration at the nanometer scale Geology July 2009, v. 37, p. 615-618, doi:10.1130/G25699A.1