First of all, let me apologize for not responding to the comments on my article sooner. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday I was out of town and unable to reply. (Not only was my brother’s modem busted, my nephews would never have let me near the computer anyway.)
Regarding the OP and subsequent comments related to it, of course I was using the word “reason” as shorthand, in the sense of “cause.” (Perhaps I should qualify that as “apparent cause” to avoid further quibbles.) Of course I did not intend to imply that either birds or chilies were “reasoning” in any way. In a scientific context I would have phrased it more precisely. What I meant to indicate is that this is the most commonly accepted scientific explanation for why chilies contain capsaicin. I have no inclination to start a discussion of the validity of evolutionary theory here. That sort of thing is better addressed in Great Debates.
In an adaptationist/selectionist/evolutionary framework, chili plants manufacture capsaicin because those that do ultimately leave more offspring than those that don’t. The reason, in fact, seems to be because their seeds are dispersed more widely and effectively by birds than they would be by mammals. A relevant recent article is: Tewksbury, J.J., G.P. Nabhan, D. Norman, H. Suzan, J. Tuxill, and J. Donovan. 1999. In situ conservation of wild chiles and their biotic associates. Conservation Biology 13:98-107. In field tests in the Sonoran desert of Arizona the authors found that birds (in this case Mockingbirds and Thrashers) effectively dispersed chili seeds to suitable germination sites (relatively moist and shaded) under other plants with fleshy fruits attractive to birds, notably hackberry. In feeding tests, small mammals rejected chilies while birds accepted them. While in this particular case the dispersal capabilities of mammals could not be tested, because they reject chilies almost completely, there have been numerous studies documenting the differential dispersal capabilities of different classes of animal consumers and how that affects seedling survival. However, I should add that, although many fruits seem to be “designed” to attract different categories of dispersers (e.g. mammals vs. birds), depending on the dispersal requirements of the plant, chilies seem to be one of the few plants that actually repel unsuitable dispersers. (IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please place quotation marks around any of the words in the previous paragraph you find debatable).
I limited my explanation to the scientific one because that is the only “reason” that is really open to experimental testing. If you want other “reasons,” I would refer you to various Native American creation tales. My favorite is that of the Cora, of Mexico’s west coast. Narama, the first man, jumped on a banquet-table at a feast. At that moment his testicles changed into chili pods, and he shook the spice onto the plates of the other diners. Momentarily taken back (I’m sure I would be), the others sampled the condiment and loved it.
Yes, technically called “umami,” the receptor responds to monosodium glutamate. Check:
Besides sweet, sour, etc., is there a fifth taste sensation, “umami”?
Regarding casdave’s post about distasteful birds, I believe there are a number of others besides the Capercaillie, but I haven’t tried to dig into this topic in depth yet. Incidently, besides the Pitohui, which I mentioned in the article, it has just been determined that yet another New Guinea bird, the Ifrita, also contains neurotoxins.
Regarding the issue of bell peppers picking up “heat” from nearby hot peppers, it makes sense to me that crossbreeding bell peppers with varieties containing capsaicin would result in the offspring being hot. But I’ll take gonz007’s word for it that the controversy isn’t resolved, as I haven’t had a chance to look into this myself.
And thanks very much to all for all the kind words on the article. I am working on a few others.