The state agent points out that there are three daisy species that grow near the Anasazi archaeological site, the X. Confertifolia, the X. Tortifolia, and the X. Cronquistii. Based on the plants external structure, I can notice the X. cronquistii slightly differs from the X. Tortifolia in leaf margin, however, all three daisies appear similar in color and shape. Therefore, the evidence regarding the plants’ morphology is insignificant.
Moreover, the X. confertifolia and the X. toritfolia can be found on a wider geographic scale. On the other hand, the geographic distribution of the X. cronquistii plant is limited. The X. cronquistii can only be found in a few sites located in the Southwest. However, the map presented by the state botanist …show more content…
According to the evidence on the plant’s soil preference, the X. confertifolia plants only grows in brown clay soil, while the X. Tortifolia and the X. cronquistii plants grows in gray shale soil, which is the soil found at the archeological site. In addition, the state geologist testified that the soil found on Mr. Anderson’s truck tire treads matched the brown silty clay soil found outside the shed at the Johnson Mine site. Also, Sheriff Gates testified that the shed located at Johnson’s mine site appeared to have had a box removed. Therefore, if the plant inside the pot is an X. confertifolia, the prosecuting attorney has no case since Mr. Anderson statements, “the ancient pot was in a shed at the Johnson Mine” and “the plants in the ancient pot came from those around the shed”, adds up. However, if the plant is an X. cronquistii, the case against Mr. Anderson becomes more compelling.
As a result, all the non-genetic evidence presented in this case can only be connected if I know the type of plant inside the ancient pot. However, the three plant’s external structure is similar in appearance, therefore it would impossible to give a definite answer to the type of daisy inside the ancient pot. As a consequence, I will not have enough sufficient evidence to find Mr. Anderson
Moreover, the X. confertifolia and the X. toritfolia can be found on a wider geographic scale. On the other hand, the geographic distribution of the X. cronquistii plant is limited. The X. cronquistii can only be found in a few sites located in the Southwest. However, the map presented by the state botanist …show more content…
According to the evidence on the plant’s soil preference, the X. confertifolia plants only grows in brown clay soil, while the X. Tortifolia and the X. cronquistii plants grows in gray shale soil, which is the soil found at the archeological site. In addition, the state geologist testified that the soil found on Mr. Anderson’s truck tire treads matched the brown silty clay soil found outside the shed at the Johnson Mine site. Also, Sheriff Gates testified that the shed located at Johnson’s mine site appeared to have had a box removed. Therefore, if the plant inside the pot is an X. confertifolia, the prosecuting attorney has no case since Mr. Anderson statements, “the ancient pot was in a shed at the Johnson Mine” and “the plants in the ancient pot came from those around the shed”, adds up. However, if the plant is an X. cronquistii, the case against Mr. Anderson becomes more compelling.
As a result, all the non-genetic evidence presented in this case can only be connected if I know the type of plant inside the ancient pot. However, the three plant’s external structure is similar in appearance, therefore it would impossible to give a definite answer to the type of daisy inside the ancient pot. As a consequence, I will not have enough sufficient evidence to find Mr. Anderson