# Talk:Protocarnivorous plant

I have a small (and probably obsessive) semantic beef with the sentence, "Some contend that their intended purpose is to aid in pollination, adhering seeds to visiting pollinators." I know it is an easy linguistic trap, but my understanding is that evolution doesn't actually "intend" anything. Rather, "accidental" mutations become advantageous. I don't really know the scholarship on carnivorous plants, but this part seems like it could use an edit. maxsch 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not obsessive at all! I've been looking for some quality, nitpicky feedback on this. And you're absolutely right. I'm by no means a writer so I appreciate those who point out my mistakes. (Hopefully I can avoid them in the future.) After reviewing that sentence, it sure was an easy linguistic trap to fall into. I'm glad you caught it. Feel free to fix whatever else you might find! --Rkitko (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Darlingtonia californica article, it's now considered a true carnivore. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)