I took a horticulture class in college, and according to the professor the Ingens Dionaea Muscipula was an enormous 30 ft tall plant. It was more like a prehistoric pitcher plant than a venus fly trap, although it did evolve into the much smaller venus fly trap. I remember it used some sort of scent, mabye pheromones, to attract large birds and small dinosaurs. They were expected to be able to digest around 50 pounds in about 24 hours, and only needed food about once a week.

id love if they made a clone of tht

That's funny, considering that when I first heard of this plant, all I could think of was "Feed me, Seymour, feed me now."

Actually, I think it's a case of the arts copying reality. When I was in the theatre program at our Center for the Arts and Sciences, we performed the play. Part of our "job" as it was, was to watch the original LSOH movie (not the musical), and before we did that, our teacher gave us a bit of backstory. It seems that the original writer had studied prehistoric botany and when he heard about this plant, the idea for LSOH was born. Since he'd always wanted to be a writer, he quit his day job and worked day and night on the screenplay for the better part of a year, if I recall correctly. My theatre teacher didn't know the name of the plant, but this has to be it - how many other huge carniverous plants can there be out there?

I would think it would be classified as a plant, just as the Venus Flytrap is. My thinking is that the determining factor is its lack of mobility. I believe the flytrap also performs some photosynthesis, which would make it a plant as well, and since the assumption is that Ingens Dionaea Muscipula is a distant relative of the flytrap, that would also be a strong case for its inclusion into the plant kingdom. One further point is that they would have reproduced as plants, and not as animals, and therefore would also not be eligible to be considered animals.

Well, looking at the anatomy of a venus fly trap, it is clearly seen that they don't have very many leaves. This would limit the photosynthesis the plant can perform. Therefore, it could be that it is the photosynthesis is in addition to the primary source of protein that allows the Ingens Dionaea Muscipula to survive.

By this, its primary food source would be protein. This is a qualification for a carnivore. And, who ever said that only animals can be carnivores?

My personal theory is that as the larger prey animals became more suspicious of the plants (with good reason, one might add), the plants had to become smaller to be able to gather enough sustenance in the form of the much dumber insects.

the reason that it is a plant is because it mainly uses the protein when there is a lack of nutrients and minerals in the soil,also it doesn't hunt it traps.
it's sounds more like the ancestor to a pitcher plant,as in it attracts and traps animals and insects then leaves them to rot with aid of it's acid which is similar to our gastric juice but quite a bit weaker,remember plants aren't just weak they are also made of weak materials,which unless proccesed or in the form of a tree would not be able to break down food(in the same way we chew as in).
i think that actually the fly traps double up as leaves when traps are shut.

It is a plant because it produces asexually, as all plants do, and near to no animals except very very few (which are clearly animals) such as the female turkey - it can produce fertilized eggs without a male - but not as a basic reproduction measure, plants do, so if, as the venus fly trap does, it reproduces asexually, then it's a plant.

Posted By: FireDamagedGod

It is a plant because it produces asexually, as all plants do, and near to no animals except very very few (which are clearly animals) such as the female turkey - it can produce fertilized eggs without a male - but not as a basic reproduction measure, plants do, so if, as the venus fly trap does, it reproduces asexually, then it's a plant.

Way to necro-post.

And keir is right, plants reproduce sexually.