BRN 9-2 (uncompressed) - Flipbook - Page 62
*Eden Phillpotts wrote this in 1918 in A Shadow Passes
(p. 19). It appeared in the following passage, in which he
describes Menyanthes trifoliata (Buckbean):
Hunting and Gathering - Stories about
conservation, hunting and Þshing, work and play
. . . about life in the Southwest by Bob K. Barsch
ÒIn the marshes the buckbean has lifted its feathery mist
of ßower spikes above the bed of trefoil leaves. The
Þmbriated ßowers are a miracle of workmanship and
every blossom exhibits an exquisite disorder of ragged
petals Þner than lace. But one needs a lens to judge of
their beauty: it lies hidden from the power of our eyes,
and menyanthes must have bloomed and passed a
million times before there came any to perceive and
salute her loveliness. The universe is full of magical
things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.Ó
In our last issue we reprinted ÒFire SpeciesÓ, one of the
essays from BarschÕs book. Bob Barsch gave us permission
to republish another essay from Hunting and Gathering. This
on ÒcountingÓ, a tool of the trade. From the book:
Of Poults and Pineseeds
The land is full of mysteries and numbers are the key to its
secrets.
Why is this important? Because similar phrases are
attributed to Bertrand Russell, ÒThe world is full of magical
things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharperÓ and to
William Butler Yeats, ÒThe world is full of magic things
patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.Ó
Attributions of the basic phrase still recognize Russell and
Yeats, even though they just repeated it (with the smallest of
changes). Why? Such attributions often appear in Òquote
booksÓ and, apparently, quotes by Yeats and Russell sell
better than those by Phillpotts.
In 1986 as I walked around the piney woods in the Flagstaff
area in mid-July, I noticed green cones on the larger
ponderosa pine trees. I have a somewhat compulsive nature
when it comes to counting things so, I decided to determine
the percentage of ponderosa pine trees that had green pine
cones.
I selected two sites for my counting, one near Williams,
Arizona at the lower range of ponderosa pine and another
near Flagstaff where ponderosa pine grows at higher
elevations. At each site, I simply walked through the woods
in a somewhat straight line and selected one hundred trees
that were at least as wide at chest-height as the distance
from the top of my Þngers to my elbow. At each tree, I
looked up into the green boughs with binoculars and
searched for green pinecones. If the tree had cones, I put a
dot under Òwith conesÓ and if the tree had no cones, I put a
dot under Òwithout pine conesÓ. Pure science. These were
happy times: I felt good counting.
Hats off to Phillpotts (or to whomever actually said
something like it originally) because the phrase captures the
excitement the unexpected generates in me. The process
which follows is often one of error, error, repeat itÕs an error,
nope, wrong, nice try, error Ñ but gradually something
comes out of this process.
In Ò6 questions about consciousness with Annaka HarrisÓ
(Max TegmarkÕs interview with her in The Mystery of Being
You on bigthink.com) she describes the scientiÞc process
better than most.
Indeed, I was happy knowing that there were two spots on
the earth where I knew more about cone production by
ponderosa pine than any one else in the world. I was a
pioneer. I had pushed back the curtain of ignorance!
Knowledge of the universe was in my hand! In fact, the
counting was so much fun that I did it the next nine
summers.
ÒThe scientiÞc method is the only self-correcting system
we have for expanding our understanding. It has its
ßaws, but itÕs also humble. It expects to be proven
wrong as part of the method for uncovering truths.
ThatÕs what makes it so powerful.
One day I noticed (after nine years) that I had a lot of dots on
the subject of ponderosa pine cone production. So, I added
up the dots by year and found that cone production was
highly variable. There were two years when eighty-Þve to
ninety-Þve percent of the trees had cones and two years
when none of the trees had cones. The percentage of trees
with cones during the remaining years varied between those
extremes.
ThereÕs something exciting about realizing that
something you felt 99% sure about wasnÕt quite right Ñ
or was entirely wrong. It paves the way for new
questions and better understanding. If weÕre willing to
admit we have made incorrect assumptions and apply
our tools more creatively, we might Þnally get
somewhere. We might start seeing the Universe for
what it is Ñ maybe even as conscious.Ó
I also read some articles by other people who like to
measure and count things. These particular articles said that
ponderosa pine takes two years to produce cones. The little
female ßower or ÒconeletÓ is produced in the spring of the
Þrst year, goes through the next winter in its virgin conelet
state, and is then pollinated the following spring. By mid
summer of the second year the fertilized cone grows to full
size and begins to drop seed in the latter part of the
following October. This delayed form of reproduction
fascinated me, but then, a lot of things fascinate me that
bore other people to tears. Plant sex - wow!
This is a process of discovery. Want to know what species a
small moth is? Enviable. But donÕt forget to stop along the
way to hear from many others, muse at scales you can barely
discern with the naked eye, or wonder who really said what.
Identifying small moths is not something I want to spend a
lot of time doing. I will leave that to those who have a
passion for that pursuit. But it occurs to me that
entomologists may have more experience in ferreting out
the truth from small hints than I.
61
