Ronaldo Montoya

Saying that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” suggests that beauty is entirely subjective, depending solely on personal taste or opinion. However, this idea overlooks a fundamental fact: human beings share biological, perceptual, and cognitive structures that profoundly shape our experience of the world.

Our visual perception, for instance, is organized according to universal principles—such as symmetry, proportion, and contrast—that the nervous system tends to interpret as pleasing or harmonious. These preferences are not merely cultural constructions; they reflect processing patterns common to our species. This is why certain faces, landscapes, or compositions are regarded as beautiful across very different cultures.

Moreover, the cognitive mechanisms involved in aesthetic evaluation—such as the detection of order, anticipation, and the balance between predictability and surprise—are also shared. This suggests that beauty is not just an individual projection but an experience emerging from a common perceptual architecture.

Therefore, although individuals may vary in their aesthetic sensitivity, beauty is not purely subjective. It arises from the encounter between an external form and an observer whose mind and senses are structured by a shared biology and evolutionary history. In other words, beauty is not only “in the eye of the beholder” but in the deep correspondence between the world and the human perceptual structures that make it intelligible and meaningful.

Another thing i discovered Is that plant the segregate this attracting ants stuff has very superficial roots and it's possible to take the trees down just pushing. And The trees still lives. So this is helpful to create shades in particular places, i mean to adapt shades and this can be useful for example for cucurbits that cannot recibe hard sun directly.

During my observations in the rainforest, I discovered a plant that forms a fascinating association with ants. The leaves of this plant secrete a substance that attracts ants and other insects, which feed on it. In return, the ants protect the plant and the species growing on it by attacking pests that try to damage them.
What’s interesting is that a wild legume (Vigna unguiculata) was growing using this ant-associated plant as a support. While other nearby legumes were being attacked by “lady beetles” (vaquitas), the one climbing on this plant showed no visible damage.
This led me to think that the association between the ant-attracting plant and the legume creates a protective relationship, where the ants act as a natural defense against the beetles.
Based on this, I’m experimenting with using this plant as a living support or companion species for other legumes that are more vulnerable to beetle attacks, in order to replicate this ecological defense.
I’d like to ask the community:
Have you seen other examples of similar associations where a plant that attracts ants or protective insects helps defend crops or wild species?
Have you observed cases where plant secretions create this kind of mutualistic alliance in agroforestry systems or food forests?


Cheers

Hi, walking alone in The jungle i found this plant growing wildy producing fruits similar to granadilla , but smaller  and The color is more yellowish.

Any idea of The name of this plant?


Cheers

R.

Eino Kenttä wrote:How come you want to grow it on pacae stumps specifically? It seems a quite useful tree (edible, nitrogen fixer, etc) and if I've understood it correctly, Pleurotus species can grow on a very wide variety of wood types. Do you have too many pacae trees?

Because pacae con serve many functions and it's also god for growing different local mushrooms. I don't have any pacae yet. I want to dona design where cutting trees can be justified. Read My previous answer.

In the book on syntropic agriculture it is explained that there are many situations where plants or trees must be cut. For example, there are times when you can plant two plants belonging to the emergent stratum, one with slow growth and another with fast growth. When the emergent tree surpasses the taller one in size, it is cut down because it has already fulfilled its function. This means that there are various situations in which cutting a tree can be functional for forest design. That is my question. In what ways can cutting down a tree be functional? I want to design where cutting down pacae trees (not just for producing mushrooms) in 15 years can be justified.

I want to incorporate the permanent production of edible mushrooms within a food forest. One option I have considered is inoculating Inga feuillei (pacae) with Pleurotus djamor on the stumps. However, I understand that in order to maintain production, I would need to cut down a pacae every few years and inoculate the resulting stump.
My question is: besides using the stump as a substrate for the mushrooms, what other functions or ecological benefits would there be from cutting a pacae every two years within the forest?

What other strategies can You think of?

Thanks

R.

Yesterday i found this one. What do You think?

M.K. Dorje Sr. wrote:As stated previously, that mushroom is not turkey tail.

However, if you scratch the white underside with your fingernail and instantly it stains dark brown, then you might just have a member of the Ganoderma applanatum group, also known as the artist's conk or ancient ling chih:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganoderma_applanatum

The artist's conk is a potent medicinal mushroom species found worldwide. Although it's inedible (except by gorillas and certain insects), it can be made into a tea. I drink it every morning.

Please let us know how the scratch test turns out.

Yes i can draw , but it only works in The middle part of The mushrroom.  But i SEE diferences with ganoderma applanatum, The white part is not complete, it doesnt cover all The under SIDE of The mushrroom only a partir and there are some wierd things growing in The white part.