Thanks very much for posting this. From the second paragraph of the Discover article I was thinking "this reminds me so much of something I read years ago...what the devil was it?". Turns out it was not years ago, but just last February (I thought time was supposed to speed up as you get older?). It's a fairly safe bet that NPR article was linked on here and that's how I came across it, too.
These types of complex mutualistic interaction between multiple species are precisely what biologists predict are most prone to being disrupted by environmental degradation and climate change, leading to high extinction risk for the dependent species. This fascinating flower (one of the few "living fossils" in the yam family) has been successful in persisting over vast evolutionary time scales, yet is now critically endangered. In the face of the mass extinction event we humans seem determined to inflict on our biosphere, conservationists often advocate concentrating our efforts on saving ancient species like Borderea chouardii, because they present relatively isolated, long branches on the tree of life. This means that saving them equates to saving the maximum evolutionary history - and thus the maximum phylogenetic diversity - with the minimum effort. (In practice, many other factors have to be taken into account.)
Now that is a well-written article. The bookend plays on words are just smart enough to not be cheesey but rather make the article especially memorable.
For what it's worth, using antweb.org I checked the geographic distribution of the ant species mentioned. Pheidole pallidula is widely distributed in the Mediterranean, and both Lasius grandis and Lasius cinereus are found in the Azores, Canary Islands and Madeira.
Well-written article and interesting read. What I didn't understand is in what sense that plant is considered "ancient"? Is it the lifespan of individual plants (300 years)? The article claims that "The plant is a relict, an ancient hanger-on from a time just after the death of the dinosaurs" -- I'd like to know what is meant by that sentence that isn't equally true for homo sapiens.
Good point. I'm assuming they mean ancient in genetic sense, i.e. kind of species that were typical back when dinosaurs were around and because of their somewhat isolated history, they evolved in a slightly different way from most plants in that geographical area.
I am reminded of http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-l... - which if you haven't seen yet, is amazing also.