My Very Own Asarum

Day 209: The internet. I refer to it as "the world's largest source of misinformation." Let's use Mr. Vogel and Asarum caudatum as our example. In 1978, Vogel published a paper stating that his "observations covering a period of several years have shown that Asarum caudatum is regularly pollinated by fungus gnats." A few short years later, this was roundly debunked by another botanist, K. Lu, and it might have ended there but for the subsequent development of personal computers and the true villain, the world-wide web. Scores of other scientists have provided abundant evidence that Vogel was talking through his hat, but excerpts from his paper began cropping up on the 'net as soon as it was birthed and spread quite rapidly as harmful invasive species are wont to do. Vogel's kudzu of erroneous information propagated at a phenomenal rate, crowding out the native truths. Sound familiar? I promise you, this is not a political post. We now have a wealth of research to support the hypothesis that Wild Ginger (Asarum caudatum) is autogamous/allogamous (self-pollinating/cross-pollinating), and that while coincidentally, fungus gnats may lay their eggs in the blossoms, they do not play a significant role in the plant's reproductive processes. And them's the facts. (And thank you, Arnie, for a wealth of reading matter on the subject.)

Verify

Day 271: A couple of unrelated events this last week have bolstered my contention that the internet is the world's greatest source of misinformation. Several searches on various subjects have further strengthened the conviction, to the point that I now feel it is safe to assert that there is a greater abundance of wrong information than right present on our beloved web.

Let us begin this exercise by saying that one of the test tubes in the photo above is filled with pee. That's right: urine. Hie thee to Mr. Google and look up urine samples. You will find them in almost every hue and state of turbidity. Compare various images, and you may find yourself digging more deeply into pH levels, dietary influences, drug tests, medication responses and so on. Once you think you have identified the tube containing urine, ask yourself what its colour and clarity suggest. By the time you've done an hour's on-line research, you might even begin to feel qualified for a P (if perhaps not the hD) in pee. You've done well! Only one problem: I lied. I took you by the hand, led you down the garden path, and told you a whopper. This is a "hoto" of liquid-filled test tubes; there's no p in any of them.

See how easily you were gulled? Likewise, if I were to tell you that they have Greys in captivity in Area 51, or that the government can turn your micowave oven into a remote listening device, or that "male" and "female" peppers can be distinguished by the number of bumps on their bottoms, the internet is there to support those claims from multiple sources. Now, more than ever before, verification of material of any sort is essential, and should be conducted before that material is republished in any form.

I make this promise to my readers: that I will try to maintain a laboratory standard for accuracy in my posts, and if I should find myself to be in error, to publish a retraction as soon as it comes to my attention. If admitting I was wrong embarrasses me, then let me blush. A blush fades quickly and does no lasting harm, unlike the perpetuation of misinformation.