I turn around and the good doctor kicks my teeth in. May I chime in? Dr. Bracker,
I understand you must assert your scienctific mastery here, but I'm not the amazing fool you think I am. I can only assume this was your hypothesis, based on your reply in addition to your lack of data regarding my protocol. So, I am here to fill in your blanks regarding my amateur-hour findings. 1. Stomates is just fine: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stomates 2. The procedure of getting the leaf section was as such: A) Picked up a living adult sanderianum plant from my greenhouse B) Used an unclean pair of scissors to cut off a leaf C) Used an unclean scalpel to cut a cm2 sample from between margin and rib D) Instantly and carefully put it under a glass slide, with no water or oil in order to keep from disturbing the cells. Under a glass slide because I do not have a nice dissecting stereo microscope yet. E) I did not remove any cuticle or cause any mechanical damage to the section. Only less than a minute for the whole leaf to react. F) Viewed it under slide at about 200x, using a gimpy microscope G) The light source of the microscope was natural light, supplementing the low light from a 2.5v/.3a bulb, which produced virtually no appreciable heat that i could sense with my fingers. H) I repeated the above three times, from the same leaf. I) I then laughed to myself, called up the trained scientist I employ, explained the above to him, poured a glass of an okay bordeaux, then posted to OGD. 3. It isn't a study. I need a better microscope, materials, lab, and protocol for that (read: send it to my scientist.) 4. My unsceintific opinion that the paper was crap, is deduced from other scientific papers (not my own, har) in direct contradiction (and more recently published,) then verified by my own unscientific observations. 5. Be careful in trusting scientific journals. A fellow student was doing a PhD and used one paper as reference, and after running her own series of comprehensive test, discovered that a resource she had in fact completely fabricated their data likely to mislead the competing producers of the ornamental plants. Surprising, to say the least, especially to the professors who verified her works. 6. If you were a stomate subjected to this kind of treatment, you probably wouldn't know you were in trouble until i tossed you to my teething kitten. As for your comment that non-scientists need to stay out of science, I admire it for how Guido Braem it sounds, however it doesn't take a biochem degree to use a little common sense and a compound microscope. I didn't spell/nazi/grammar check this because I would need an english degree, Steve Topletz > Orchid friends: > > The test of stomatal opening/closing reported in the posting by Steve > Topletz is, I am sorry to say, meaningless (OGD Vol. 7, Issue 115, #5). A > stoma (stoma [Greek origin] is the singular term; stomata is the plural, NOT > stomates) consists of two living guard cells of the leaf epidermis. They > respond to certain environmental changes and change their shape which causes > them to separate from each other in the midregion, thus creating a gap or > hole through which water vapor and gases are exchanged between the > intercellular spaces within the leaf and the external environment. The > operative concept here is living cells. > > The procedure used by Mr. Topletz (who admittedly is not a scientist) > imposed the following on his samples of P. sanderianum (Latinized binomials > should be italicized Steve): A) �leaf section� which meant that he used a > blade to cut the leaf thin enough to be able to view it with a microscope. > B) He �threw� it �under slide� is not really clear. I presume he means he > carefully placed it under a cover slip on a microscope slide. C) Implied > but not stated was, �subjected to very high light conditions and possible > change in temperature� as a consequence of illumination for observation > under the microscope. > > Now, for �A� above, he severely mechanically damaged cells of the leaf. It > is difficult to say which ones and how badly, but living cells do respond to > being cut, even if it is their neighbors that are decapitated or cut open. > The bottom line is that the tissue piece was seriously stressed by the > method of specimen preparation. > > Next is �B� above. By placing the small piece of leaf (emphasis on piece) > on a slide under a glass cover slip, no doubt enclosed in a liquid water > environment, the leaf epidermis is not in the kind of environment that is > normal and customary for its typical day-night functioning. The gas mixture > of air (nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, etc.) was replaced by > liquid water (I assume, or else he did not describe his methods in > sufficient detail). The bottom line is that the leaf epidermis was > subjected to environmental stress due to the method of mounting the �live� > piece of leaf tissue. > > �C� above, is self explanatory as described above. The bottom line is that > the very act of observing the living tissue with the intense light in its > stressed environment adds yet another stress. > > Finally, he does not state how many times he repeated his experimental > observations, and whether he did so under different conditions. > > Given this laundry list of stresses and faults, one cannot draw any reliable > conclusions about the real life behavior of guard cells (stomata) on the > leaves of P. sanderianum or any other plant. > > Steve should understand that there is absolutely nothing personal about my > comments. They are made in a constructive sense to set the record straight. > But I would be very careful about calling other people�s (scientist�s) work > �crap� when it is published in a refereed professional journal, and when you > are admittedly a non scientist. > > The broader lesson to be learned from this limited example is that untrained > nonscientists, who do not understand or adhere to the scientific method or > to standard laboratory techniques and precautions should be hesitant to draw > conclusions from data that may very well be faulty. If I were a stoma > subjected to the conditions of Steve�s observations, and if I still had > enough life left in me to do so, I would close up as tight as I possibly > could, just to protect myself against the coming doomsday. > > Steve�s conclusion may be correct or it may be incorrect, but not because of > the data he obtained. His data just don�t hold any water. > > Dr. Charles Bracker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) > [email protected] > http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
