The aliens have landed, and they are in Madagascar

March 22, 2015 • 11:20 am

by Matthew Cobb

Regular readers will know that Jerry doesn’t do or get Tw*tter, even though a number of his posts originate from there. This is a case in point – I have been following an expedition to Madagascar that has been looking for ants in the rainforest, and has been tweeting their experiences via Brian Fisher (aka @ant_explorer). Earlier today Brian retw**ted this tw**t from fellow expedition member @HikingHack (aka Andrew Quitmeyer):

This was the craziest damn thing I saw all trip! Found near summit w @openPlusea + @ant_explorer. It’s a plant??

Andrew also posted this cool video:

Andrew assumes it’s a bit of a plant, but what could it be? A bract?

I really think it’s an alien. If you peer closely at that green bit, a face-hugger will come whishing out and that’s you done for, bub.

[UPDATE: WE HAVE AN ANSWER! The readers of this site know pretty much everything. In comment #17 below, Mary Endress nails it:

It’s an infructescence of Ephippiandra from the plant family Monimiaceae. A very weird one!

Go ahead – Google it, you’ll see she’s right!]

51 thoughts on “The aliens have landed, and they are in Madagascar”

  2. Having no way to post this generally, I’ll leave this note here: This was originally a Facebook posting:

    According to a poll reported in The Oregonian, 42% of Portlanders consider themselves non-affiliated religiously; 43% of that 42% said they don’t believe in god. If you do the math, that comes to about 18% of the general population saying they don’t believe in god. The same poll said only 4% of Portlanders self-identified as atheists; which can only mean that a whole lot of people don’t know what atheist means. That 18% which self-identify as non-religious and do not believe in god, yet don’t identify as atheist, most likely do so, because they want to avoid what they see as negative associations with the word “atheist.” The bottom line, though, is that you can add the two together and you’ll come up with 22% of Portlanders are atheists.

    As significant is the percentage of unaffiliated who don’t think that, no matter what god may or may not be, that you can have a personal relationship with it/him/her: 81%.

    2. Many Spiritual-But-Not-Religious types think the label “God” refers strictly to the Abrahamic version. The mystical, sacred Force(s) or Higher Power(s) they believe in don’t qualify. But to them “atheism” represents the opposite extreme of nothing but the physical world.

      They’re more interested in tribal divisions than cohering with language. They’re between the “extremes.” They want to emphasize that.

      Personally, I’d call them “theists” because there are many versions of God. Whether people call a Higher Power “God” or not is often a coin-flip based on whether they want to make it look like they’re on the ‘same side’ as Christian fundamentalists or not.

      If we insist or encourage them to call themselves “atheists” we’ll inflate our numbers by including people who are firmly in the pro-faith and pro-supernatural camp. Since our problem (as gnu atheists) with “God” is indicative of a larger problem with faith and the supernatural, I think this would be confusing and prove problematic in the long run.

    3. I would just append it a bit and make it “a god” though we know that “god” doesn’t mean “deity” it means ” to call a deity.” But that is just me a stickler for detail.

      So do they answer what a deity is first? Are they spiritual in any way, are they superstitious? We need detail here and depth to get a better handle on this. Not affiliated really doesn’t mean without some religious belief system.

  4. Looks like a bit of gummy candy someone dropped, probably when they were exclaiming at all the leaf hoppers!

    2. I thought he said, “They’re getting hard too. I like that.” But for me there’s an accent to deal with.

      Either way I had the same, admittedly childish, response. 🙂

  7. The first thing I thought upon viewing this video was “What the hell … they don’t know what it is and they just pick it up??? Have they never heard of poisonous plants?”

    Nice to know that if they do get a rash, boils, or — worse case scenario — a life-threatening fever, they will have no idea whatsoever how to treat it. In my opinion the craziest damn thing here is how nonchalantly they’re all handling this … thing.

    1. Exactly. Red with a contrasting color is natures way of saying ‘do not touch’.

      Maybe we are about to see a shaky, handheld camera documentary of explorer humans being gradually transformed into alien body snatchers.

    2. I doubt this is an issue. I’d have handled it myself to figure it out, and would have examined it more closely than these folks did. I’ve handled many odd plant bits and seldom had problems. This does not look like something dangerous to touch.

      I’d not eat it though. 🙂

      2. Bright colors in Nature means one of two things, see me or stay away from me.

  8. It should be some kind of plant thingy, but I would like to see context. Was it attached to a plant?

  11. Not a bract, but maybe part of a multiple fruit? But the edges appear intact, not cut or chewed. I suspect that each of the bumps is a ripening pistil. I don’t think it’s a fungus.

    I wish the video had shown more about the exact site these were found — most of it is not very helpful. Seems casual and not really directed at documentation/identification. Seeing one where it was found might have helped. Fallen from overhead or attached to a stem or the soil? Showing a cut cross section would have been nice.

  13. I don’t know the proper words, but I thought it looked like it came from a fern, and would become ferns itself. The green bit looks further along in the process than the rest.

    I think it’s also probably safe to test eat it over the space of a few days (following the survival process) and the colour discourages predators but doesn’t represent much else.

    1. Do you mean spores? Could be.

      My guess is that they’re some kind of plant life – maybe a part of a succulent (like a leaf) that has fallen off and that can set down roots and bud into baby plants.

          1. But it could be a succulent too – looks more like a succulent – lots of weird ones in South Africa, and they (Madagascar and Africa) used to be joined together.

  14. It’s some kind of acne-infested extraterrestrial jellybean. I can imagine it leaping onto the back of my head and making me take it on a tour of homeland security locations.

          1. I reckon if you squeeze those pustules it squirts liquid sherbert. And sighs in a funny little put-upon Alan Bennett voice.

  17. It’s an infructescence of Ephippiandra from the plant family Monimiaceae. A very weird one!

  18. Imitating the food of a bird, that´s a tricky mimic ! I guess it is better to stay unripe…

    1. Some plants actually “want” to go through the gut of a bird in order to reproduce.

Comments are closed.