Submitted by the panel of experts appointed by John M. Kingsbury, Professor Emeritus:
Molly Kyle Jahn (Plant Breeding)
Henry Munger (Plant Breeding)
Dominick Paolillo (Plant Biology)
Anusuya Rangarajan (Fruit and Vegetable Science)
March 24, 1998
Foreword:
This report of the observations and conclusions of the panel is a definitive record of our findings, but the report is delivered with a minimum of scientific jargon, because we are aware that the observations described here must be understood beyond the limits of the scientific laboratory. Should a more precise description be desirable, the panel remains at the service of the Provost, as we remain in his employ.
Executive Summary:
It is a pumpkin!
Preliminary Observations:
The surface of the object is ribbed, end to end, suggesting the surface features of a pumpkin. The object is hollow, and open at both ends. The opening at what we assumed to be the lower end, because of its superior size, and because of the gravitational sag in the object in that direction (see Figs. 1, 2) was square (see Fig. 3), as if the object had complied with the shape of the tip of the tower when the materials comprising the object were in a more pliable condition. At the time of examination, however, the materials were stiffened, with a tough skin or "rind" separated from the "flesh", which had the consistency of a dry cellulose sponge, resembling when cut into a small sample a "crouton" in density and texture.
Microscopic Observations:
Both the rind and the flesh responded to wetting, the rind curling outward as if it hydrated to a greater extent at the interior side, and the flesh softening to the consistency of moistened stale bread. The tough rind could be thinly sliced in the hydrated condition, but the flesh could be cut thinly only while dry.
Aqueous mounts were examined with low and medium powers of a light microscope, equipped with a video camera and video cassette recorder. Images of the thinly sectioned rind and flesh were observed on screen by the panel, and recorded on the tape, which was handed over to the custody of our colleague from Engineering, Mary Sansalone, for inclusion in a video record to be archived at the University. Such images are reproducible, on demand, from the small sample now archived in the Section of Plant Biology (no pun intended). These images prove conclusively the vegetable nature of the object, by virtue of revealing a complexity of structure readily and repeatedly accomplished in nature in the fruits of the family (Cucurbitaceae) to which the pumpkin belongs, a complexity so marvelous as not to be reproducible by the human hand.
Firstly, both the rind and the flesh were cellular. Whereas cellular solids are routinely fashioned by the plastics industry, the cells produced their way are not "differentiated". On the other hand, the cells of the putative pumpkin were differentiated in very particular ways that showed the materials to belong to the group of organisms commonly recognized as the vascular plants, and most likely to a particular group of plants, known as cucurbits, maturing hard-rind fruits.
For within the flesh of this object, a background of thin-walled cells was permeated by a network of elongated cells, some of which had an architecture of annular and helically thickened walls so characteristic of the water-conducting elements of three-dimensional primary plant tissues.
Such details of structure embedded within the massive flesh of the putative pumpkin would not be characteristic of man-made materials. Had the ground structure been created from papier-m‰chŽ, it would have been made of thick-walled cells entirely, but with uniformly thickened and pitted walls characteristic of the wood cells that constitute paper. In that case, also, the groundmass would have consisted of these fibers, tracheids and (possibly) vessel elements of the wood alone. There would be no thin-walled, cellular groundmass permeated by differentiated strands of delicately sculptured annular and helically patterned cells of primary tissues, as found in the wall of a fruit, and as was the case in our sample.
Moreover, the toughness of the rind was revealed to be accounted for by a cell layer with highly thickened external and anticlinal (perpendicular) walls, as is the fashion in the epidermis of cucurbit fruits. Thus, the anatomical evidence leads to the assertion that the object under study was actually the winterized, or naturally "freeze-dried", rind and flesh of a pumpkin or pumpkin-like fruit.
Corroborative Evidence:
The plant breeders and the fruit and vegetable scientist asked for the stem of the putative pumpkin and the seeds. By their reckoning, naturally occurring cultivated pumpkins are best identified to species using the diagnostic features found in these two aspects of the fruit. Both of these were missing, however, so the trio of field scientists relied on early photographs of the object atop the tower (see frontispiece), and agreed that the image presented in these photographs was that of Cucurbita pepo.
Conclusion:
Due to the carefully selected composition of this panel, the microscopic details and the gross morphology can be merged into a body of evidence that leads to a single, harmonious conclusion: It is a pumpkin!
Appendices:
The following appendices are added to satisfy those who desire depth rather than brevity in a formal report. In particular, we are anxious to address any of the possible concerns that the positive attitudes of the panel are in some way indicative of a lack of attention to detail and the possibility of alternative answers. The appendices comprise their own narrative, which creates the context of the decision reported in the body of this report and rewards the reader with a full knowledge of the validity and weight of our conclusion.
1. Background:
This panel formed in the Cornell tradition of immediate response to pressing national issues via the application of scientific expertise from within the University. An expert identification was required by the Provost for the object placed by unknown persons and/or forces at the top of the McGraw tower, at the heart of the Ithaca campus. This object had the appearance of a pumpkin of moderate size. However, the ability of the object to remain in place throughout the winter and to retain its shape with minimal distortion caused skepticism all across America that the object was indeed a pumpkin. The skeptics offered alternative theories that the object was made of plastic or papier-m‰chŽ, fashioned in the form of a pumpkin.
The Provost charged Professor Emeritus John M. Kingsbury with the responsibility of assembling the team of experts. This choice was more than fortuitous, because Kingsbury is known both for his awareness of and connections in the botanical and horticultural communities and his considerable capabilities in handling the media.
The panel was named on March 11, to minimize security leaks before the capture of the object of study on Friday, March 13. The Provost assumed direct responsibility for retrieval of the unidentified object. This also was a more than fortuitous choice, as panel members had planned minimal athletic activity for the day of retrieval, in consideration of the conjunction of the day and date, and the prediction of a full moon and an eclipse of the moon for that evening.
Panel members were assured that only their scientific expertise was to be tapped, and the more politicized consideration of choosing the winner from among the student entries in a contest, limited by the rules to identifying the object without leaving the ground, was to be left to another group of experts. All the Provost needed from this panel was independent confirmation of the probable identity of the object, which at least two teams of students had already determined in their minds to be a pumpkin.
With a well defined sense of goal and duty, the panel assembled in 211 Plant Science Building, a plant biology teaching laboratory, at 10:30 am on Friday the 13th, to await the arrival of the putative pumpkin. The location used for these observations was held a closely guarded secret, and the proceedings were free of the pressures of the popular press, attended only by Cornell personnel from the College of Engineering, and our own Media Services.
2. Capabilities of the panelists:
The choice of panel members was achieved in the Cornell tradition of freedom with responsibility. Here the agent of the Provost was free to choose personnel from any of a large number of units at Cornell that supply responsible information on pumpkins (see "It's a pumpkin!", award certificate bestowed upon the winning team of students identifying the object), and settled upon three units known for their dedication to the plant sciences. The choice of personnel incorporates divergent views of nurturing and assessing pumpkins. Through the conventional but time-honored approach of combining panelists with extensive field experience and others with lab skills, Kingsbury tapped into decades of experience in both arenas, combining the perspectives of the traditional and the avant garde, in terms of orientation, training, and technical skills. Membership cut across gender and age (although in the service of the Provost, all are young at heart).
We note in passing that the composition of this panel entirely from the faculty of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences does not prejudice the outcome in favor of the finding, and is only an accident of history at Cornell, where the singular complexity of the combination of State and Endowed colleges has led to an unusual partitioning of the biological interests among the colleges.
3. Authenticity of the sample:
The object arrived in the custody of John Kingsbury, who reported that he had received the same object that the Provost had removed from the tower. This object had characteristic asymmetries of shape like those appearing in assumedly authentic photographs of the the object on the tower (Figs. 1, 2). Likewise, the object held by the Provost (Fig. 3) immediately after retrieval appeared to be that in the photographs of the overwintered, putative pumpkin, in situ.
The panel sensed, immediately, that the hollow object resembled the hollowed carcass of a "jack-o-lantern", and that this resemblance in itself strongly suggested pumpkin. However, realizing the need for scientific as opposed to cultural evidence, the panel pressed onward.
The panel discussed the awkwardness of how the object had been displaced from the tower, and whether the momentary confusion as it tumbled to the scaffolding below could have made it possible for anyone on the scene to substitute the present object for the one that was on the tower. We concluded from the resemblance of the object before us and the photographic evidence (Figs. 1-3) that because it was the Provost himself who was on the scene, it was highly likely that the object that was delivered to us was, indeed, the object so recently seen at the top of the tower.
4. Reservations:
As we are bound by the code of science to restrain the uninitiated from unwarranted conclusions, the panel emphasizes that the cellular differentiations revealed by the microscope do not limit the choice of identity to "pumpkin". It is well known, for example, that common cucurbits like the butternut squash and the watermelon share these features. Likewise, the absence of seeds and stem (or peduncle, as it is known to the botanist) limit the strength of our evidence, because the diagnostic evidence strictly required for species identification is not available.
This situation suggested to the panel that if the person or persons responsible for the placement of the object atop the tower are ever identified, it may be found that their horticultural knowledge of pumpkins extends to species identification, and that said party or parties, for their own purposes, eliminated the evidence useful in species identification in order to add to the aura of mystery surrounding their deed. Alternatively, the top (stem end) of the object and the seeds may have been lost when the object was hollowed out to lighten and stabilize it atop the tower.
The tell-tale features of stem and seeds would have allowed us more certainty in choosing between Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita pepo. As an aside, the panel wishes to report that according to specialists in California, C. pepo is to be considered the pumpkin. Elsewhere, C. maxima is allowed the epithet "pumpkin", as well. Because the latter can be grown to sizes approximating one-half ton, and the former can not, the Californian purists never win the national contests for largest pumpkin.
5. Final Concerns:
In the final analysis, the panel depended on the appearance and relative size of the object to reach the conclusion that the object as pumpkin represents a fruit of Cucurbita pepo. We relied on assumedly authentic photographs of the object in situ to reach this conclusion. Of course the applicability of the observations from photographs to the object delivered to the panel depends on the photographs available to us being interpreted as a sequence of images of the same object, as opposed to a sequence of objects of different shapes being exchanged, one for the other, atop the tower. Because we have no evidence of how or how often objects are placed in that location, we can not eliminate the latter possibility.
As a final disclaimer, the panel admits that its conclusions are based on the simplifying assumption that the object we have identified originated on this planet. Should that be true, we assert the correctness of our identification, regardless of the particular technology that was used to mount the object on the tower. Should that be untrue, all bets are off. Be that as it may, the panel acknowledges that this inquiry opens as many questions as it answers, some of them sociological. For example, one may ask, "How many Cornell scientists are required to identify a pumpkin?" Whereas any of the panel members could have ventured the answer alone, we assert that the accuracy and durability of our scientific finding, as well as the length of this report, are greatly increased by the committee approach.
-----------end of report
Dominick J. Paolillo, Jr., Chairman
Section of Plant Biology
Mail: 228 Plant Science Building
e-mail: mailto:djp4@cornell.edu
fax: 255-5407
telephone: 255-3273