We are knee to knee. “Business trip?” she asks me. I sit in the front row of the small airplane, and the flight attendant sits facing me. We are close, and our knees nearly touch. The plane’s engines engage, their tone tightens and their drone turns guttural as the rpms rise. The flight attendant straps in.
“I’ve been asked to speak at a botanical garden near Los Angeles,” I tell her.
She takes a moment to digest this idea. “What are you going to talk about?” she asks.
Now it’s my turn to hesitate. How do I tell a flight attendant that I plan to talk about the role of serial homology in evolutionary innovation?
“The evolution of flowers,” I tell her.
Hesitation returns to her. I see the syllables clink through her thoughts.
“I have a petunia,” she says, “but it looks more like a carnation. Is that what you mean?”
We are quickly at a cross road in this conversation. Why can’t I just say yes? Those kinds of variations in nature, I could say, provide the raw material for natural selection, which either selects against the variant or allows it to persist, reproduce, and become the material basis for further diversification. I know I can’t take that road. Instead, I take a road full of dangerous curves. “That’s probably a genetic modification made by a plant breeder rather than evolution in nature,” I say.
My biologist’s soul itches uncomfortably as I speak. All of the artificial selection data gathered by Charles Darwin as evidence for the creative possibilities of selection, whether natural or artificial, scrapes against my answer. And, of course, there are all of the fascinating new results from developmental genetic studies that have used variants like the flight attendant’s carnation-like petunia to understand the genetic basis of floral forms and the molecular basis of evolutionary transformation.
“You mean like a wildflower,” the flight attendant says.
“Yes, they are wildflowers.” I grow slightly more comfortable, thinking that I won’t need to explain my research in any more detail.
“I used to go on Sierra Club hikes,” she says. “Not so much anymore since I’ve gotten older. But there was a guy who would point out all these different wildflowers.”
My cheeks flush. I’m that kind of guy.
“Some of the wildflowers smelled like dirty socks,” she says. “What were those flowers?” she asks and looks directly into my eyes, expecting a good answer.
I have no idea where in the world or in what kind of environment this woman encountered bad smelling flowers. I could ask, but instead I answer her promptly and keep my eyes linked to her eyes. “Jacob’s ladders,” I say. “They are also called sky pilots and even skunk leaf because of the strong smell. They are common in the mountains.”
She looks dubious. “Jacob’s ladders,” she repeats. Her hard gaze continues to hold my eyes. “What kind of plants do you study?” she asks.
This question was so much easier in the years when I worked primarily on hydrangeas; otherwise in my 30 years of research on plant evolution, I have seldom worked on any plants that are remotely familiar to the lay population.
“They are probably not plants you’ve seen,” I say.
“What do they look like?” she asks.
I describe the flowers, feeling suddenly challenged to find words that are not technical. I use the word stamens, and I can tell by her look that this was a mistake.
“Are the like roses or daisies?” she asks.
I want to hug her. I want to thank her for giving me a multiple-choice test that acknowledges her range of knowledge.
“Roses,” I say.
She says, “I’ve heard that flowers were made by God for the enjoyment of people.”
I smile and nod and open my book.