Connie Barlow

The de-extinction crowd would like this if they haven't already read it (it's been out for 13 years, so probably already have). Why do gingkos smell of rotten meat, and why do the honey locust pods persist on the ground more than a year after falling? The answer, according to Jantzen & Martin in a 1982 paper is that their ecological partners are missing- animals with a gullet large enough to swallow the massive avocado seed and dump it with a nice patch of fertilizer, carnivores willing to take a chance on some pleasantly aroma'd fruit. Barlow looks at some interesting likely anachronisms in the American landscape- would be interesting to see how ecologists' views have shifted if any in the time between publication and this.… (altro)

Substance: Develops an idea proposed in 1982 in Science magazine, by ecologist Dan Janzen and paleontologist Paul Martin, that certain fruiting plants are "intended" for now-extinct dispersing agents, namely megafauna of the mammoth, giant sloth, etc. league, which made the plants anachronisms about 13,000 years ago. Interesting and plausible; I have no problem accepting their thesis. Curiously, they actually believe that the evolutionary development occurred far sooner than the nearest extinct dispersers, sometime in the age of the dinosaurs, which means there has been no evolutionary pressure on the plants to adjust to new, less-optimal agents.
In addition to the explication of the professionals evidence and arguments, Barlow also experiments and contributes personal anecdotes to the book.
Until reading this book, I did not know that horse and camel progenitors developed first on the American continents, and then moved to Asia before dying out here.
I like the idea or re-introducing camels into the western US to browse on mesquite and other noxious shrubs that have invaded the grasslands and are not eaten by cattle or horses.
Style: Barlow, a science writer and journalist, writes in an easily accessible, folksy manner; however, she repeats many of her major points over and over (fruitlessly?), and fails to define certain technical terms early on (or ever), leaving the reader to puzzle them out by the context. A time-line putting the named eras in order would have been helpful as well.
She is not the only "popular science" writer to belabor obvious or easily-stated points while neglecting to give needed back-story or definitions to the lay reader; it is a curious intellectual "bubble" or set of blinders.… (altro)