Plant intelligence dux: a comprehensive rebuttal of Kingsland and Taiz: Plant intelligence dux: a comprehensive rebuttal of Kingsland and Taiz: Trewavas.

Intelligence is a fundamental property for all life enabling an increased probability of survival and reproduction under wild circumstances. Kingsland and Taiz (2024) think that plants are not intelligent but seem unaware of the extensive literature about intelligence, memory, learning and chromatin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Protoplasma Vol. 262; no. 2; pp. 255 - 267
Main Author: Trewavas, Anthony
Format: Journal Article
Published: Springer Nature Mar2025
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=183131220&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 183131220
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0033183X
        2CF
      jtl: Protoplasma
      issn: 0033183X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2025
      vid: 262
      iid: 2
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        183131220
        180692458
        10.1007/s00709-024-02005-1
        183131220
      ppf: 255
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Plant intelligence dux: a comprehensive rebuttal of Kingsland and Taiz: Plant intelligence dux: a comprehensive rebuttal of Kingsland and Taiz: Trewavas.
      aug:
        au: Trewavas, Anthony
        affil: https://ror.org/01nrxwf90 Institute of Molecular Plant Science, Kings Buildings, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JH, Edinburgh, Scotland
      sug:
      ab: Intelligence is a fundamental property for all life enabling an increased probability of survival and reproduction under wild circumstances. Kingsland and Taiz (2024) think that plants are not intelligent but seem unaware of the extensive literature about intelligence, memory, learning and chromatin topology in plants. Their views are consequently rejected. Their claim of fake quotations is shown to result from faulty reasoning and lack of understanding of practical biology. Their use of social media as scholarly evidence is unacceptable. Darwin's views on intelligence are described, and their pertinence to the adaptive responses of plants is discussed. Justifications for comments I have made concerning McClintock and her "thoughtful" cell, von Sachs writings as indicating purpose (teleonomy) to plant behaviour, Went and Thimann's allusions to plant intelligence and Bose legacy as the father of plant electrophysiology are described. These scientists were usually first in their field of knowledge, and their understanding was consequently deeper. The article finishes with a brief critical analysis of the 36 scientists who were used to condemn plant neurobiology as of no use. It is concluded that participants signed up to a false prospectus because contrary evidence was omitted.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N