This is a path we may not want to go down. Many people object to ascribing things like feelings, thoughts, etc. to animals. And to call growth patterns in plants "behavior" and "intelligence" -- I submit that it is a misappropriation of the words, and ultimately cheapens their original meanings.

For example, machines don't have intelligence, they are simply human inventions which imitate intelligence as far as they can be made to. Plants don't have nervous systems, while animals such as insects do: they have neural networks which can store memories, process them, and act accordingly. 

> The concept of plant intelligence has been advanced by Trewavas as a potentially useful framework to guide those seeking to understand plant growth and development. We can certainly start using the term plant intelligence but only if it is agreed that the term has nothing to do with intelligence (the ability to discern, comprehend and choose) in the more widely accepted sense. Indeed, might not the adoption of the term plant intelligence begin to distort, rather than clarify, our perception of the way in which plants function? 

> It might ultimately be unproductive to debate whether a plant has memory, whether a plant can learn or whether a plant can possess a spatial map ... Our language lacks appropriate words. However, if new words are needed to describe how plants function, maybe we should invent new ones rather than trying to redefine existing ones. -- Firn, R. (2004). Plant intelligence: an alternative point of view. Annals of Botany, 93(4), 345-351.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html