On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 at 17:04:47 -0400, Michael Brady
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think the tree that the drying poles came
> > from was bisexual.
> Is that like a dicotyledon? I think I have conifurs and the
> deciduals genderized; I never get the dicotyledons right, though.
It may startle you to read that some plant species actually have
individual sex: one specimen bears only male flowers, another only
female. The bay tree of classical fame /Laurus nobilis/ is an
example. There's a big word to discribe these: dioecious.
But as truth is always stranger than fiction (I amost wrote friction
there!), let me add that some plants are monoecious (which I may
have misspelled): the individual flowers are solely male or female,
but a given specimen has a mixture of both.
And then there are the polygamous plants, where the flowers of one
individual include a mix of male, female, as well as the bisexual
flowers normally found in plants.
Finally, to add to the puzzle and give raw material to would-be
inventors of alien cultures, there are plants that whimsically change
their sex from year to year. The common jack-in-the-pulpit /Arisaema
triphyllum/ does this.
None of which has anything to do with monocots vs. dicots.
ObTypographicComment: Is it a subtle form of gender confusion on the
part of a designer if a man designs a feminine typeface or a woman a
masculine one? Or is this merely an advanced manifestation of drag?
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada