By Eben van Tonder, 18 March 2025

Reflections Inspired by The Carrion Flower: An Evolutionary and Cultural Study of Stapelia

Introduction

The natural world offers countless examples of adaptation so finely tuned that they seem to verge on impossibility. Among them, the genus Stapelia—commonly known as the Carrion Flower—stands as an exemplar of such evolutionary precision that it strains the limits of our understanding. In The Carrion Flower: An Evolutionary and Cultural Study of Stapelia, I explore this extraordinary plant’s biology and its broader cultural significance. But beyond cultural symbolism lies a biological enigma: How did a plant, through the blind processes of natural selection, come to so exactly mimic the appearance, texture, and smell of rotting meat?

It is tempting to view this mimicry as the product of intelligent design, as if nature itself gazed upon a decaying carcass and decided to replicate it. Yet the orthodox explanation, rooted in Darwinian natural selection, insists that no such intention exists—that it is merely the consequence of chance mutations filtered through survival pressures over vast timescales. But even some of the most respected voices in evolutionary biology admit there is something deeply unsettling, even uncanny, about the specificity and apparent directionality of such adaptations.

The Unlikelihood of Stapelia

Consider what Stapelia has achieved. It has evolved not just a superficial resemblance to carrion, but an almost forensic impersonation:

• Visual mimicry: Its colours mirror the hues of decomposing flesh in varying stages of decay.
• Tactile mimicry: Its surface is marked by coarse hairs that mimic the appearance of fur-covered rot or maggot infestation.
• Olfactory mimicry: It emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including diamines like putrescine and cadaverine, precisely those found in decomposing flesh (Jürgens et al., 2006).

Why did Stapelia hone in so precisely on the carrion fly as its pollinator? Why did natural selection refine its deception to such microscopic detail, while other flowering plants, under similar evolutionary pressures, took entirely different paths? If survival were the sole imperative, and attracting pollinators the universal challenge, why not evolve the more conventional mutualisms of nectar and colour, as the majority of angiosperms have done?

In my essay, I frames the question powerfully:
“It seems as if the plant gazed upon rotting meat and, in an act of uncanny mimicry, became it—down to the very molecules that betray death to the most discerning scavenger.”

The Standard Evolutionary Account—and Its Gaps

The traditional Darwinian framework argues that incremental mutations over countless generations, sifted by selection pressures, resulted in the emergence of Stapelia’s mimicry. Pollination by carrion flies was more successful for those variants that resembled carrion more closely. Over millions of years, the system refined itself into the perfect trap we see today.

This is the standard model, and it works elegantly in many cases. But even its most ardent defenders admit that examples like Stapelia strain the imagination. Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker (1986), acknowledges the illusion of design is strongest in such adaptations, calling them “statuesque masterpieces of evolutionary sculpting that make it difficult for even the most skeptical to see anything other than intent.” Dawkins insists, however, that this is an illusion—a by-product of natural selection’s cumulative power over time.

Yet doubts persist. Michael J. Ryan, in A Taste for the Beautiful (2018), writes about sensory exploitation, whereby organisms evolve to tap into pre-existing perceptual biases. While Ryan accounts for how Stapelia exploits the carrion fly’s sensory toolkit, he admits that the “aesthetic precision” of such mimicry suggests something deeper about the “evolutionary algorithm” than we currently comprehend.

Brian Goodwin (1994), in How the Leopard Changed Its Spots, argues that evolutionary biology often underestimates the role of inherent structural order and self-organising principles in the emergence of biological form. For Goodwin, life’s complexity is not solely the result of selection acting on random mutation, but also of deep, emergent patterns in nature—patterns that appear directed, even if no director exists.

A Glimpse into the Unknown: Scientists Who Dare to Ask More

While many evolutionary biologists are content to argue that time and probability are enough to explain Stapelia’s precision, others admit that there may be mechanisms we have yet to uncover.

Rupert Sheldrake (1988), though controversial, suggests in his theory of morphic resonance that once a biological form or pattern has emerged, it becomes easier for it to appear again. Sheldrake contends that organisms inherit not just genes, but habits of form and behaviour from a collective memory inherent in nature. Though unorthodox, his hypothesis speaks to a sense many share: that Stapelia’s mimicry suggests a form of learning or memory beyond our current genetic models.

Andreas Weber (2016), in The Biology of Wonder, describes life as inherently creative and participatory. For Weber, organisms are not passive recipients of mutation, but active participants in their own becoming. The Carrion Flower, in this view, is not a machine honed by accident, but a creative life form expressing its own ecological niche.

Even mainstream thinkers like Terrence Deacon (2011), in Incomplete Nature, argue that science lacks a full understanding of how purpose and function emerge from complex systems. Deacon suggests we are only beginning to grasp the principles that generate life’s elaborate strategies.

The Ocean of Knowledge Yet to Be Discovered

As we consider Stapelia, we are reminded of how much remains unknown. Sir Isaac Newton, reflecting on the limits of human understanding, once wrote:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” (Brewster, 1831)

Stapelia may be one such shell—a seemingly small curiosity that points to a vast and undiscovered ocean of biological truth. Perhaps we have been standing too long at the water’s edge, mistaking the mechanics we understand for the ocean we have yet to explore.

Conclusion

In The Carrion Flower: An Evolutionary and Cultural Study of Stapelia, I invite you to reflect on a plant that defies our understanding of evolutionary possibility. While the best scientific minds have constructed compelling theories of natural selection and adaptation, Stapelia still stands as a symbol of life’s deeper mysteries. It is as though nature, through forces yet unknown, decided to imitate death so perfectly that it lured life itself back to it.

Until we can explain such precision in its fullness, we remain like Newton’s boy on the shore, staring out at an ocean whose depths are still concealed.

---

References

• van Tonder, E. (2025). The Carrion Flower: An Evolutionary and Cultural Study of Stapelia. Earthworm Express. Link
• Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Ryan, M.J. (2018). A Taste for the Beautiful: The Evolution of Attraction. Princeton University Press.
• Goodwin, B. (1994). How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Sheldrake, R. (1988). The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature. Times Books.
• Weber, A. (2016). The Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling, and the Metamorphosis of Science. New Society Publishers.
• Deacon, T. (2011). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Jürgens, A., Dötterl, S., & Meve, U. (2006). The Chemical Nature of Fetid Floral Odours in Stapelia gigantea (Apocynaceae). New Phytologist, 172(3), 452-468.
• Brewster, D. (1831). The Life of Sir Isaac Newton. Harper & Brothers.