That's not a "kind" of chicken and egg question, it IS a chicken and egg question! Darwin probably knows how they evolved, I don't - be interested to see the answers on this one.

A you have a very enquiring mind and now you've set me off. I often drive myself mad with such questions, but this one I will leave to others. I'm 75 and still asking questions all the time, of myself and others, then get on to Wikypaedia (spelling?) but usually don't ask the question in such a way for them to understand or something. Anyway whoever finds an answer, please let me know - there may be several theories, and I'm sure Bamboo is right on Darwin, but he's not around!! Shame.

I have a collection of amaryllis bulbs all of flowering size they do start off as seeds then develop into bulbs over the space of a few years so I guess other bulbs start life off the same.

Would you like me to explain?......

.....oh go on then!

True bulbs have evolved at least four times independently of each other in plant families such as the Amaryllis, Lily, Iris and curiously in an even more unrelated group, Oxalis family or at least a few South African species from the Karoo that have bulbs remarkably similar to Tulips.

The bulb is basically a series of modified basal leaves. Think of a rosette of overlapping leaves thickened and buried (in most types) under the soil. These have become storage organs to survive either drought or cold etc. A second growth spurt in the growing season produces unmodified green leaves. This is all controlled by hormones and has evolved progressively over a long time.

You can see in some Iris groups the transition between a rhizome type into the bulb type. There are other genera (again from South Africa) in the Iris family that also show various degrees of transition.

The above should not be confused with the many Cormous (corms) of some in this group which are modified stem sections that have two or three joints expanded to form a starchy storage organ with a tip bud and a few side buds.

Thank you Fractal, but it still doesn't answer the main question, which came first, the plant or the seed, the chicken or the egg ? We're getting a bit too philosophical I think!
Seriously Fractal that really is very interesting. I had no idea how bulbs formed, although I did know that they were a kind of power pack. Its all so amazing and I don't think we stop and really appreciate the constant miracles of nature in our gardens - I know I don't.

Thanks, Fractal, it would have taken me six pages to try to explain that.
But to go back to Ak, bulbous plants like daffodils can be grown from seed but it takes a long time. You could buy some species narcissus bulbs from a supplier this year and they will produce flowers next spring. Leave the seed heads to ripen and sow them next summer and in another four or five years you could hope to see flowers on them. Only the species will come true, seeds from the namerd cultivars, eg February Gold, will not be true. This is why most gardeners just buy bulbs, only a few of us are daft enough to grow from seed.

But like the chicken and the egg thing, it was a plant which did not have a bulb which set seed and produced a plant which does have a bulb. Just like what ever laid the egg was not a chicken but what hatched was. Well, sort of, evolution theory is a lot more complicated than that.
And back to plants, there are also rhizomes and pseudo-bulbs tp contend with too.

And they often get lumped together and all called 'bulbs' by the general gardener!

I bet you wish you hadn't asked...

Most wild bulb species reproduce primarily by seed, though most also can produce offsets, sometimes resulting in extensive areas covered by genetically identical clones. Extremes found in nature: Tulipa saxatilis, which is a sterile wild tulip from on the island of Crete, which produces no seed, but has covered hundreds of acres of rocky hillsides by bulbs formed on the tips of thin rhizomes; and Zephyranthes citrina, a small bulb from South America (?), which produces no offsets, but will produce copious seed with no pollination, the seedlings being clones of their mother. In cultivated bulbs, almost every new variety starts as a seedling, but is thereafter usually produced by division, bulbils, cuttings, or other means of asexual reproduction. The main exception, though technically not a bulb, is the Persian Buttercup (Ranunculus asiaticus), which is grown from seed in huge fields in California, with the "bulbs" being packed up and sold after a year or two of growth--after being carefully inspected in growth and bloom to make sure it is true to its "variety". A few new varieties of bulbs have been discovered as mutations growing in a field of cloned bulbs. 'Golden Apeldoorn' tulip is one of the most famous of these. See? By comparison, chickens and eggs are simple!

Of course this chicken and eggs, bulbs or seeds thing assumes a belief in Evolution. There are those who would say that The Creator made them that way . Or if inclined to Creationism then the process is carrying on now with The Creator continually adding to creation.

Well that's a whole other question, Owdboggy, lol. Some people believe in "The Rapture" or little green aliens...

For myself, I see no conflict with the Creator using evolution as a tool. Unfortunately, all of the Creationist literature that I have seen is apparently by people who are not very conversant with science in general. That may be an artifact of my limited acquaintance with the genre: I have only read a few popularizations. Of course, talking like this may get us both flagged, Owdboggy! : )

Reckon you're right there, Tugbrethil - skirting a bit close to the old "don't mention the war" thing beginning with R...

Think I'll stick with evolution rather than creation...

See no reason to flag either of you Tugb.

Very interesting answers thank you all :)
However we came to be here it still amazes me that we are here at all, and the conditions are as perfect as they will ever be !

Well said Aster :-)

So why are we, mankind, doing our damned best to destroy these perfect conditions and ourselves!!!!

Greed, impatience, short-sightedness, wishful thinking, laziness, ignorance, etc., etc....Nothing that I do, myself (riiiiight!) ; )

It would be amazing if we could all realise that there really is no where else for us to go,and just enjoy all that this world has provided for us.

Some of it is 'stuff' I guess none of us want to look at... medical science can now keep people alive who would 10 - 20 years ago have died. So we are creating a larger and larger population of more and more elderly people... now given mine and Mr MB's age I suppose I should be delighted but - we are destroying the balance of nature... we can no longer feed and support all the humans on this plant without seriously damaging the actual planet. So what do we do where do we go and how do we start resolving this?

I agree with Mg. What we should be doing has mankind is looking at ways in which we can restore the balance as well as maintaining our developments in all sciences and technology in order to create a balanced healthy planet for all our future generations to come

I think all or most on GOY would agree but we already care,try getting politicians to work together for the good of all nations!
By perfect conditions I mean all the elements necessary came together for our development.What we do with them is another matter.

an interesting discussion - hope you don't mind Aimankay, lol! I'm sorry to say, folks, that I don't think its supposed to be easy and functional here - life is problematic, and all the time humans are here, ego and vanity will be at the bottom of it all... we're not perfect, and never will be.

I bet Aimankat wished they hadn't asked!
Neither do I see a conflict between evolution theory and creationism and those creationists who do see a conflict, apparently read the bible and take every word literally.
I don't think its possible to come to a definitive answer either, because it could have been the seed which came first, or the plant and unlikely to be the bulb.
I agree with everyone!!!!

eeek. I thought it would have been a straight forward question for experienced gardeners but i guess i was wrong. i need to do a bit of search on some terms mentioned in the posts above to understand if my question has been answered. :-)

Well, I'll give you the theory in layman's terms Aimankay - its' most likely that bulbs were originally seeds, but where they grew, the conditions were such that the plant could only survive by developing a modified stem as a storage organ for food for the following year, and over time, it became what we know as a bulb.