Life /
Warsaw palm tree - interesting or a waste of money? [20]
Palms are a relatively modern invention in evolutionary terms. Amongst the most recently evolved groups of plants are grasses, daisies and palms. They still somehow have a "prehistoric" look to them, but that may just be our way of looking at exotic tropical species as dwellers in temperate climates.
Flowering plants (that includes palms and grasses as well as all broadleaf trees and shrubs) have only been in existence since the Cretaceous era (I hope I'm getting this right because I'm typing all this from memory), so dinosaurs may well have nibbled on a few flowering plants, but they would have received much more of their nutrition from older groups of plants - conifers, ginkgos, ferns and horsetails.
Conifers are a little more ancient, originating in the Carboniferous era. That was when much of the coal found in Europe was laid down in forests comprising of horsetails (Equisetum) and those other ones I've forgotten the name of. Monkey puzzles and their close relatives (Araucaria spp.) were one of the first groups of conifers to diverge from the rest. When people say these trees look prehistoric, they are, in a way, absolutely correct.
Ginkgos have been around about as long as conifers, maybe longer. Now they are found in the wild only in parts of China, but are very popular as specimen garden trees and also as street trees in Japan. Prehistoric? These things are positively dinosaur fodder. It's remarkable that these things still exist in the world. There should be a few of these in Poland. There should be more... everywhere. I have one in my garden. I want more!
Even more ancient are things like horsetails, ferns (including tree ferns that I mentioned earlier). But these can't be used to make such spectacular street monuments.
That was the horticultural / geological bit, but what about creating impressive monuments?
People these days don't want big statues of great, powerful leaders (or warmongers). Think of all those statues of Soviet leaders and so on. Think even of Nelson on his column in London. He's thought of by some people around the world as a megalomaniac war-criminal. Then dotted around him are various earls and dukes who are almost unheard-of today, but probably killed a great number of people in their times.
You could have some sort of modern art - something that represents something known only to the artist perhaps. I remember seeing something on a plinth that looked like a big pile of sticklebricks. The Lego statue? Nice! Not that I don't think modern art can work well as public monuments. I like Gormley's Angel of the North, for example. But I listen to (well, hear) artists talking about their work and often find myself drifting into a deep sleep. Either you like it or you dont. Either it means something to you or it doesn't.
So how about a big tree? A monument to human acheivement, yet to nature at the very same time. Well, if it dies, that's not a good advertisement for human acheivement or the strength of nature to withstand the forces of humankind. Perhaps it's a monument to global warming, just a little too soon.
