Survey — where it appears
Named by 26 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Fibonacci is a branch, not a law
Fibonacci counts come from one branch of the model. The Lucas branch — which the same rule reaches at a different growth rate — gives 47 and 76, and neither is a Fibonacci number. The sequence is a consequence of an angle rather than a property of plants.
What "whorled" was hiding
The earlier work's census put 35% of divergences in a bucket labelled whorled and moved on. Opened, every pair in it is k and 2k — the coarsest rung of the ladder, repeated k times — and reading the census up to jugacy takes the Fibonacci share from 14.7% to 50.1% without describing a single extra plant.
Which junctions say anything
Da Vinci's rule and Murray's law differ by 12% at an even fork and by a tenth of a per cent at a twig. So one even fork settles which is right, and two thousand twigs do not — a factor of two thousand across a tree, decided entirely by the shape of the junction and not by how carefully it is measured.
A sample that is confidently wrong
Fifty lopsided junctions from a tree built at an exponent of exactly 3 return 1.7, with an interval that excludes 3 and excludes 2 as well. The sample carrying almost no information does not give a wide answer — it gives a narrow wrong one, and the cause is a selection nobody applies on purpose.
How often is it Fibonacci
The claim that plant spirals come in consecutive Fibonacci numbers is stated as a near-universal. Asked of the geometry, the answer collapses with scale — at a coarse rise 67% of divergences give Fibonacci pairs, and at a fine one 15%, with whorled and unnamed pairs taking the rest.
What a count is worth
A reported parastichy pair pins the divergence angle to a band 221°/mn wide — so 2 and 3 says almost nothing and 34 and 55 fixes it to a tenth of a degree. Each step up the Fibonacci sequence is worth a factor of φ², and recording the radius a pair was counted at adds only ten per cent.
How many plants would it take
Fourteen specimens separate the geometry's Fibonacci share from a coin weighted to a half. Four separate it from what a grown history gives. One fir cone measured at three rings settles whether its transitions are spaced as a cone's or an ogive's. The sample sizes are small, and that is the uncomfortable part.
The survey this site cannot do
Four rounds of asking for a dataset, and it is still not here. What the work here can do instead is specify it — the fields, the sampling, the sizes, and which of this collection's claims each one would settle. Two of the four fields asked for turn out to be worth less than the asking implied, and one was never asked for at all.
The test a plant could settle
Every other open question in this collection is priced in tens of specimens, and one of them in a hundred and sixty. This one is priced in internodes on a single stem, and the number is fifty-six — because it is a statistic of one sequence rather than a share of a population.
What a quiet plant is worth
Almost every measurement gets easier as the effect gets larger. This one gets harder — a stem's divergence sequence stops carrying information about its noise at precisely the scatter where the noise becomes obvious. The specimens worth measuring are the ones that look least interesting.
How much of a cone to measure
Two rings cannot show a varying exponent — not with difficulty, but in principle, because one gap determines one exponent with nothing left to disagree. Four or five can, if each is found to within a per cent. At three per cent this specimen cannot be told from a power law however many of its rings are recorded.
What the protractor has to be
The readout that names the parastichy number costs sixty internodes, which is cheap. It also needs every organ's position measured to better than a quarter of a degree, which is not — and the requirement follows from arithmetic rather than from care, so no amount of averaging relaxes it.
What a summary throws away
Four statistics this collection has relied on turn out to be incapable of varying with the thing they describe — one is invariant to shuffling, one is fixed by a theorem, one is a parameter that stopped mattering, one is a fitted number selected into being wrong. In each case the second statistic was free and nobody had taken it.
What the pair costs
The single parastichy number cost sixty internodes. The pair costs two hundred and fifty, and a protractor error of three quarters of a degree takes it to eleven hundred. The arithmetic that predicts the second of those is right about the shape and wrong about the scale by a consistent factor, which is recorded rather than fitted away.
What a refusal does not say
The readout can decline for four different reasons — too quiet, too disturbed, too fast, or a window in the wrong place — and a stem that returns nothing does not say which. That is the third time this thread has failed to close the mixture problem, and the first time the failure has a shape.
A refusal with a reason
Three note left with the work running have recorded that a refusal has four causes and the sequence separates none of them. With a second window and a protractor, three are separated: silence at 0.38° of scatter is a quiet plant, silence at 56° is a disorderly one, and agreement certifies the rate. The fourth survives, and so does a worse discovery — agreement is not correctness.
The control a survey would need
A comb no longer shows that a plant computes its pattern, so the survey this site has been specifying for a long time has to change. What it loses is its headline; what it gains is a measurement a botanist can actually make — six requirements, four of them already in the specification, and a quantity nobody has ever reported.
An experiment a needle could run
For eight instalments the outstanding item has been a survey — photographs, a protractor, hundreds of specimens — and it has not been done. The intervention is a different kind of ask, and a cheaper one: a needle, one apex, and a yes-or-no per ablation. Here is what it would cost, what it would settle, and the four ways it could come out.
The survey loses its second outcome
The survey specification written earlier here names three results the survey could return, and the second — a ratio near or above 1.30, read as evidence against the placement rule — is the one that would have been worth publishing. It does not survive the measurements here. The ratio moves with where the plant sits between two transitions, and it moves again with the colour of the plant's own disturbance.
The ablation a plant would survive
The intervention proposed earlier returns a spiral count from a yes-or-no answer, needs no protractor, and was specified at one rise. Measured across the ladder it acquires three conditions a real experiment would have to meet — and one of them is that the plant must not be too coarsely patterned, or nothing will go wrong at all.
The second statistic was the first
The experiment this collection has been specifying was priced as two readings off one sequence, the second of them free. The two readings turn out to be one function looked at twice, so the specification loses a statistic — and gains a cheaper one, a warning about how observables get priced, and a question it could not previously ask.
A count that can be wrong by one
A reported parastichy pair pins the divergence angle to a band 221°/mn wide only if both counts are right. Allowing either to be off by one adds the bands of every neighbouring pair whose counts share no factor, and those bands sit where their own lattices live: for 2/3 they swallow the whole range, and for 34/55 they are two bands as narrow as the true one at 109° and 113°, twenty-five degrees away. So a high count that may be wrong is not a blurred reading but a short list of sharp candidates, costing log₂ 3 bits. And on the Fibonacci pairs, two in every six — 21/34 and 34/55 among them — cannot be miscounted silently by one count at all, because every such miscount shares a factor.
A count that drifts by two
A reported pair of 34 and 55 that may be wrong by one allows three sharp bands; allowed to drift by two it allows thirteen, and by three, twenty-nine — and the information lost is exactly the logarithm of that count, because every band is as narrow as the true one. The nearest wrong band stays twenty-four degrees away until a drift of three brings one to eleven. What does not survive is the protection: 21/34 and 34/55 could not be miscounted silently by one, but every Fibonacci pair can be by two, so a counter who drifts by two as readily as by one reports 34/55 silently wrong 9.5 per cent of the time rather than 0.13.
Two counts that slip together
A counter who closes the circle a few degrees late counts a sliver of the head twice, in both families at once, so the two counts of a reported pair drift together rather than apart. Coupled that way the count is safer than it was: fourteen Fibonacci pairs in twenty-three admit no silent equal shift of one, against seven that admit no silent single miscount, and 34/55 announces every closing error short of 9.82°. The check is what breaks. Two annuli closed at the same wrong mark pass 17.6 per cent of wrong readings of 34/55 and 76.8 per cent of 13/21's, because a linear relation survives multiplication — and what catches them instead is a protractor good to twelve degrees.
The census wants a low count
Four specimens separate the geometry's Fibonacci share of 14.7 per cent from the ninety per cent a grown history gives — if every count is right. Counted with a closing error spread over 7.2°, the same census needs six specimens counted at 13/21, fifty-four at 34/55 and 449 at 55/89, because the geometry's own pairs are all small enough that no closing error under 11° moves them, while a grown plant counted high loses its Fibonacci reading first. Counted at 55/89 with a spread of 9.83° the census reads plants as less Fibonacci than random angles. The count that pins the divergence best is the one a census should avoid.
Counting it again
A reading whose two counts share a factor says the count went wrong, and the specimen is still there to be counted again. Counted afresh, the reading kept is exactly one reading conditioned on not announcing itself — the second chance a silent error gets is matched by the second chance a right reading gets — so a recount changes which specimens a census keeps, not what a kept reading says. At 34/55 with closing errors spread over 7.2° it takes the census from fifteen kept specimens to ten and from about thirty counts to twenty-one, and against scoring every reading it turns 449 counts at 55/89 into 52. It never makes a high count as cheap as counting 13/21 once.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
SpecimenDivergence angleMeasurement errorHonest limitsMeasurementSample sizeIdentifiabilityParastichy pairAutocorrelationDiscriminationFibonacciEvidence