The Sex Life and Folklore of Western New York Wildflowers D. Bruce Johnstone The Pundit Club March 9, 1981

Back to Dr. Johnstone's readings 

Some of you, I know, suspect that I have employed that cheap old trick of throwing "sex" into my title in a shameless attempt to lure young farm boys and old pundits into listening to a tedious academic tone that, in fact, hasn't a scintilla of salacity to it. Wrong! This is indeed about sex, at least in part. As you all know, the flower, botanically, is the reproductive organ of the angiosperm -- that astonishingly successful kingdom of plants that includes grasses, shrubs, trees, and practically everything cultivated for food and fiber -- as well as what we more popularly call flowers, those herbaceous angiosperms whose reproductive systems include lovely shapes, showy colors, attractive odors, and other devices all calculated to enlist unwitting members of the animal kingdom as participants in their acts of floral sex.

But I am just a bit ahead of my story. The sex act of a flower is actually quite boring, at least if you are used to mammals, or especially to people. Yet it is strikingly similar, if a whole lot slower and lacking altogether any to the organism. the sexual congress of the male and female gametes begins with the male reproductive cell -- a grain of pollen -- finding its way on to the stigma, the slightly sticky top of the female reproductive organ, at the bottom of which is the ovary, with several ovules, or young unfertilized seeds. The pollen then travels in a microscopic tube down the style from the stigma to the ovary, and enters an individual ovule through a microscopic hole called a micropyle, where, in the tiny interior of the ovule, the genetic union takes place and a seed begins to develop just like in people, with a bit of its mom and a bit of its dad.

What is remarkable, and terribly useful, about sexual reproduction of any life form -- snapdragon, fruitfly, rhesus monkey, or wheat -- is that it joins two gene pools, passing on, and often combining in wonderful new ways, the attributes of both parents. Sexual reproduction both creates and transmits variation, which is the essential stuff of evolution. The serendipitous variation that is better able to adapt to its environment survives and with luck passes on those special characteristics to its progeny who (or which) are statistically more likely to survive and to keep the new gene pool going. Unlucky mutations or no longer viable genetic material passes on to oblivion, while the tribes of the successful mutations increase and prosper.

As an aside, most angiosperms can also reproduce themselves, or be reproduced at the hand of man, asexually or vegetatively. Runners, bulbs, grafts, cuttings, layering, and other methods not involving seeds reproduce the parent plant as would a clone -- without variation in the genetic material of the parent. This may be commercially useful, assuming satisfaction with the basic gene pool, as it is generally faster and, of course, more "true" than sexual, or seed, reproduction. It may or may not be more enjoyable to the plant than sex. But evolutionarily speaking, vegetative reproduction is a bust.

Highly contrived variations such as commercial hybrids, which are done by meticulous hand pollination from the right boy flower part to the right girl flower part, have usually not evolved stable genetic material capable of exact, or even of close, reproduction. Sexual congress of male and female hybrids is likely to produce low-life throwbacks to some distant primitive cousin. Consequently, most hybrids require continuous arranged marriages of the proper gene pools -- in addition to appropriate prophylactic measures -- such as paper sacks over the corn silks -- to keep the wrong male pollen from getting into the female's you-know-whats.

What we call the flower -- the brightly colored, often sweet smelling part -- is nothing more nor less than equipment evolved over the last 110-130 million years to attract insects, birds, and bats and to enlist them in spreading their pollen. Almost all flowers have developed brightly colored petals (in some cases, sepals -- but the difference is here insignificant) to attract their pollinator. If the rest of the apparatus is designed for bees, for example, the color is likely to be toward the ultraviolet end of the spectrum, which the bee eye can best distinguish. If the pollinator is to be a bird or a bat, the color will likely be red, for the same reason. If the agent is nocturnal -- a night flying moth, for example -- the color will probably be white, or at least light.

Flowers that attract worker bees, who seek the pollen itself, need only to have the pollen visible and accessible. But male bees, flies, and many other insects as well as birds and bats, are attracted not by the pollen but by sugary nectar, which has a luring scent. They carry the pollen from one nectar bar to another only because they are messy and some of it is always sticking to their shoes, hat, or lapel. Some flowers have teamed up with carrion eating flies; their scent is disagreeable to us, like rotten meat, although apparently quite delectable to the proper fly. Some plants are able to produce biochemicals that are incorporated into the insect's sex attractants, thus drawing the same insect, opposite sex, into the flower, desirably dragging a bit of pollen with him or her.

Flowers are even arranged mechanically to fit the proper pollinator, so that the pollen from the daisy is not wasted by being dragged into the calex of the Lobelia. Thus, flowers that hide the nectar deep in a tube will be visited only by long-tongued bees and butterflies. Flowers that open only in the evening will be visited only by night flying insects. And so on. The results, to the flowers, are effective means of propagating their kind, with the assurance of sufficient genetic variations to maintain flexibility in the gene pools. To the rest of us, the results are lovely things growing wild in fields, vacant lots, woodlands, and roadsides, or cultivated in our gardens.

For most of recorded history, however, the loveliness of flowers was secondary to their real or imagined medicinal value. Almost all common wildflowers, at least of the Old World, had ascribed to them some such pharmaceutical properties. And many of our most common wildflowers -- like daisy, yarrow, Queen Anne's lace, campion, mullein, vervain, and many others -- are relatively recent immigrants, which spread to our roadsides from the gardens of early settlers or from the packing refuse of transatlantic shipments.

Often there were real pharmacological bases to at least some of the putative cures. Concoctions from roots, leaves, or flowers often had effects upon the body, sometimes quite profound, and the more violent the effect, even to the point of poison, the more attractive the herb. The herbals -- books of herb or wildflower medicine, extending to very recent years -- cited common wildflowers and their concoctions as:

Much herbal medicine reflects the early and understandable notion that being sick was "having bad stuff inside of one," and that almost any agent that helped to empty the body -- by defecation, urination, perspiration, regurgitation, or expectoration -- was probably a good thing. Many plants, as we have noted, made one vomit or defecate or sweat or shrivel; when the illness passed, as it generally did unless the patient died, which was not infrequent, the cure was naturally ascribed to the herbal remedy.

At times, of course, the herbal remedy was all it was claimed to be. The most famous of all is probably foxglove, or digitalis, a lovely tubular flower of mottled lavender that an old hag in England claimed to be a cure for dropsy -- a serious and painful condition of fluid retention. In the 1770's, an English physician and botanist, William Withering, heard of the foxglove's properties and performed what were probably the first scientific experiments upon a pharmaceutical agent. The drug digitalis, for which the foxglove is the only source, has a powerful effect on the heart, the failure of which was actually the cause of dropsy, and the stimulation of which was the explanation fro the cure Most other herbals are considerably less potent and less useful than digitalis, yet one can find a few useful herbs by the Western New York roadsides.

An infusion or decoction of the roots is said to stimulate appetite and to alleviate constipation in children. The fresh roots are said to be depurative; while the leaves, eaten as a salad, can be used to counter high blood pressure, or as a poultice on skin ulcers.

It is a tonic stimulant, promoting digestion, strengthening the viscera, and restoring the tone of the system; it is a valuable sudorific (sweating), alterative (gradual effect), antiseptic, cathartic, emetic, febrifuge (fever), corroborant (invigoration), diuretic (urination), astringent, deobstruent (body ducts), and stimulant. The warm infusion is used as an emetic, sudorific, and diaphoretic in fevers and constipation. Also used in rheumatism, typhoid fever, pneumonia, catarrh (inflammation of mucus membrane), dropsy, influenza, excellent for colds, fevers, dyspepsia, jaundice, debility of the system, etc.

  **********

 

This, I believe, is more than enough. There is really no end to the stories, and the ones I have brought you were selected primarily by the accidents of those of which I have taken pictures and not forgotten to set the ASA reading.

Wildflowers are beautiful, elusive, complex in their sexual behavior, rich in their history and folklore. Most of them are right here in the ditch, along the river, in vacant lots, and by the edge of your garden. Once you begin watching for them, the roadsides will never look the same.

Revised September 1997

Back to Dr. Johnstone's readings

(Back to top)