Talk:Botany/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Font for "grc-Latn" text

I was getting a strange appearance for text marked as in "grc-Latn", e.g. {{lang|grc-Latn|botane}} which renders as "botane"; basically the text was very condensed. I found the reason at Template talk:Lang#Screwing up formatting. Marking text as "grc-Latn" puts it in the font which is specified in your browser for use in displaying Greek characters. But this isn't right: it's a Latin alphabet version of Greek and should be displayed in the normal font for text. I can fix it by changing the font used for Greek characters to the one I use for normal text, but this font not as good for Greek, so I shouldn't have to do this.

I conclude that {{lang|grc-Latn|...}} shouldn't be used until this problem is fixed, so I'm going to remove it. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plant responses to internal and external signals (Oh great, more botany stuff???)

Well, in my biology textbook there's an entire section dedicated to plant responses to internal and external signals, yet I don't see much mention of that in this article. Shouldn't there be some stuff on studying plant hormones and light responses?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support this, it is important 20th century understanding, provided the statement can be kept brief. This should be an article summarizing what the scope of botany is, not a comprehensive account of its information content. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be good too. What I have onhand doesn't have such a section. I do see some things on the 'net though. Could you add this bit? 512bits (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to have a go at roughing it out, although I am no expert in this area. I am a bit daunted at the huge information content. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's some basic topic points you should hit to help you out—

• Auxin
• Cytokinins
• Other plant hormones (giberellins, ethylene, abscisic acid, etc)
• Phototropism
• Gravitropism
• Other tropisms (touch, etc)
• Deëtiolation
• Long night/short night plants

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

aaarrgghhh! :-) Plantsurfer (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think going into more than a paragraph would be too much detail for a general/overview article. 512bits (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Phylogenetics

I've expanded a brief mention of phylogenetics. I have some more refs to add but don't have time right now. I wonder if there should be a brief mention of cladograms, with a simple example? These are widespread in plant articles and botany textbooks. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar thought. Cladistics should be mentioned here, if only with a link. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree Peter, add it in when you have a chance. 512bits (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Feel free to revert/edit any additions. I've added an image (I like pictures!) which you may or may not like.

By the way, I don't know which of the Bibliography sublists Anderson (2001) should be in; please move if I haven't got it right. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I love the cacti pics! 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me if I missed it, did the clad thing that was mentioned get added? 512bits (talk)

No, I've added a paragraph now – a very heavily condensed summary of some 8 pages in Mauseth (2012). I started with Mauseth rather than another source to try to keep it relevant to plants. I'm not entirely happy with it; it's very condensed and I'm not sure what a reader who doesn't have some prior knowledge will make of it. It doesn't seem right to expand it much more in an article about botany; on the other hand, the "cladistic method" is fundamental to modern plant science, e.g. the APG stuff mentioned later. Again, feel free to amend.

Should there be an example cladogram too? We could condense the cactus one in Mauseth, perhaps putting in Euphorbiaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. This is an overview article in a general encyclopedia vice an academic tome. A cladogram would be good, but I personally would like to keep the cacti double image in, so we may have to adjust the photo layout in that section. 512bits (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cladogram

I've tried three times to produce a cladogram for use in the article along with a short explanation, and not yet been happy with my attempts.

• The cladogram should ideally be related to something in the section.
• It needs to be simple, but yet of fairly substantial interest.

I tried:

• A simplified version of Mauseth's cactus cladogram, which fits with what's there before the cladogram will go. However, it seemed to need too much detail and too many different kinds of cacti to be simple enough for this article.
• An cladogram and explanation of why dicots are not now considered a natural group of angiosperms. This may still be the best, I now think. It relates to the next bit on the APG, but seemed a bit over-complex.
• An cladogram and explanation of why horsetails are now treated as ferns. I spent most time on this, and you can see the result here. However, I was mislead by the Fern article. If you follow up the two refs for the cladogram, which I should have done first, they don't support the version in the article. Recent sources still seem to leave the precise position of the horsetails unresolved. Also the groups of ferns are too obscure, I think, for this article.

Anyone have any other ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Perhaps use the style of the one you did on ferns, etc but use the info on dicots? 512bits (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it again when I get a chance. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now added a very simple cladogram, which I think is probably enough for this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary draft hormones

Here is a preliminary draft. I don't pretend it is complete or polished, but some of you might like to add your bit or hack it. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Draft

1. A plant shoot (e.g. maize coleoptile) with the sun positioned directly overhead. Auxin (the pink dots) is evenly distributed within the shoot tip. 2. The sun is positioned at an angle to the shoot, causing auxin to move to the opposite side and stimulate the cells there to elongate. 3,4. This results in heliotropism, the shoot curving to follow the sun.

Plants are not passive, but respond to external signals such as light, touch, and injury by moving or growing towards or away from the stimulus, as appropriate. Tangible evidence of touch sensitivity is almost instantaneous collapse of leaflets of Mimosa pudica, the insect traps of Venus flytrap and bladderworts and the pollinia of orchids.

The hypothesis that plant growth and development is coordinated by Plant Hormones or plant growth regulators first emerged in the late 19th century. Darwin experimented on the movements of plant shoots and roots towards light and gravity, and concluded "It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle . . acts like the brain of one of the lower animals . . directing the several movements". About the same time, the role of Auxins (from the Greek auxein, to grow) in control of plant growth was first outlined by the Dutch scientist Frits Went. The first known auxin, Indole-3-acetic acid, which promotes cell growth, was only isolated from plants about 50 years later. This compound mediates the tropic responses of shoots and roots towards light and gravity.

Cytokinins are a class of plant hormones named for their control of cell division or cytokinesis. The natural cytokinin zeatin was discovered in corn, Zea mays, and is a derivative of the purine adenine. Zeatin is produced in roots and transported to shoots in the xylem where it promotes cell division, bud development, and the greening of chloroplasts. The gibberelins, such as Gibberelic acid are diterpenes synthesized from acetyl CoA via the mevalonic acid pathway. They are involved in the promotion of germination and dormancy-breaking in seeds, in regulation of plant height by controlling stem elongation and the control of flowering. Abscisic acid (ABA), which occurs in all land plants except liverworts, and is synthesized from carotenoids in the chloroplasts and other plastids. It inhibits cell division, promotes seed maturation, and dormancy, and promotes stomatal closure. It was so named because it was originally thought to control abscission. Ethylene is a gaseous hormone that is produced in all higher plant tissues from methionine. It is now known to be the hormone that stimulates or regulates fruit ripening and abscission, and it or the synthetic growth regulator Ethephon which is rapidly metablized to produce ethylene, are used on industrial scale to promote ripening of cotton, pineapples and other crops.

Venus's fly trap, Dionaea muscipula, showing the touch-sensitive insect trap in action

Another class of phytohormones is the jasmonates, first isolated from the oil of Jasminum grandiflorum which regulates wound responses in plants by unblocking the expression of genes required in the systemic acquired resistance response to pathogen attack.

Discussion

Best wishes, Plantsurfer (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Would someone like to have a crack at editing a sentence or two on Phytochrome, red and far-red response, etc?? I don't know enough about it. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a botany article, a sentence on auxins and cytokinins with a sentence on phytochromes without red and far red response should suffice. --18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So do you think the material here is already more detail than necessary? What do others think?Plantsurfer (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, way over detailed in a way that blocks the basic understanding of why plant hormones are so important to botany. One sentence or two on each, what it is, how and why botanists study it, you know, why we mentioned these hormones. --AfadsBad (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This video doesn't appear to work, and is too large. Are there fixes for this?

This video works fine for me. I use FireFox. Above I said one para is enough, but I really like the video and the image above, so I can be persuaded for enough text to allow for placement of both files ;-) We'd need to cut down the space the venus fly trap takes as this is too overwhelming. 512bits (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so would you like to make the change to the article, since I can't properly see what I'm doing?? Plantsurfer (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Where would you like it to appear? If it's in a separate section, what section name? Just "Hormones"? 512bits (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest create a subsection in Plant physiology called "Plant hormones". There is also a sentence in the second para of in Modern Botany that reads "The discovery and identification of the plant hormone auxin by Kenneth V. Thimann in 1948 enabled regulation of plant growth by externally-applied chemicals. Frederick Campion Steward pioneered techniques of micropropagation and plant tissue culture controlled by plant hormones.[32]" I suggest leave the wording of that as is, but link "plant hormones" to the new section, i.e. plant hormones. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! On it. I hope the photos don't cause a display mess. 512bits (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The flytrap photo sticks down into the next section. We need to expand the section, or maybe if we trim the caption to the sun photo it'll do the trick. This is how it appears on my computer at any rate. 512bits (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. We haven't added a bit about phytochrome yet, so maybe that will straighten things up a bit, but anyway I think it looks great. I still can't figure out why I can't make the video work on my machine - it looked fine when I ran it from WM Commons. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done with the refs now. We still need to fix the flytrap layout somehow. Someone may still be planning to add a cladogram too. I added a bit about phytochromes but it needs expanded.512bits (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if I might add a couple of paragraphs about pivotal moments in 20th century Botany.??

The finding in 1939 that plant callus could be maintained in culture containing IAA, followed by the observation in 1947 that it could be induced to form roots and shoots were key steps in the development of plant biotechnology.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil rhizosphere bacterium, can attach to plant cells and infect them with a tumor-inducing Ti plasmid by horizontal gene transfer, causing a callus infection called crown gall disease. Schell and Montagu (1977) hypothesized that the Ti plasmid could be a natural vector for introducing the Nif gene responsible for nitrogen fixation in the root nodules of legumes and other plant species. Today, genetic modification of the Ti plasmid is one of the main techniques for introduction of transgenes to plants and the creation of genetically modified crops.

Fine with me. 512bits (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DOI error

I can't figure out what is wrong with the DOI in this ref. When you click on the DOI link in the Plant Cell journal article, it works, but in our wiki botany article it doesn't work. Can someone help? Here it is ... "Sussex, I. (2008). "The Scientific Roots of Modern Plant Biotechnology" (PDF). The Plant Cell 20. doi:​​​10.​1105/​tpc.​108.​058735Check |doi= value (help)". thanks 512bits (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bunch of zero-width spaces in ASPB journal dois—something I discovered a few weeks ago. I wrote to them about it but they never responded. Use Copy Link Location.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I do that?512bits (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if you put it into google, the spell-check will clean up the doi for you.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I still can't get this to work. 512bits (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Try this: 10.1105/tpc.108.058735 —Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, still not working. See edit of 18:28. 512bits (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Some citation bot fixed this but also made a bunch of bad edits.512bits (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tidying

Systematics section - the word Systematics is used in the title, but the section leads off with Scientific classification in botany. Systematics is not defined, and the word is not used again as a noun, although a later sentence uses it as a gerund "The cladistic method takes a systematic approach to characters". Could someone more taxonomically (sensu lato) literate than I please have a look at whether Systematics is the appropriate title of the section, and if so give it a brief definition. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I still find all these terms – systematics, systematic botany, taxonomy – very confusing, and the more attempts I make to find definitions, the less sure I am what any of them mean as they are actually used by botanists. For example, it's said that taxonomy is a wider term than systematics, yet the journal of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists is called "Systematic Botany", implying that taxonomy and systematic botany are the same – why have a journal which doesn't cover the whole of your area? User:Sminthopsis84 has a self-description as a "systematic botanist" on his/her user page, so perhaps s/he can help! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be part of the frustration here! The international association similarly states that their aim is to promote systematics, though they call themselves taxonomists. When I next make it to the library, I'll try looking in Julian Huxley's The New Systematics to see if there is a definition there. As I've mentioned previously in discussion about this, I was taught that systematics is the methods of investigating relationships and evolution, and taxonomy is the result that one aims for (a classification), so I see systematics as not about matters such as nomenclature, but there are definitions that have been incorporated into the relevant pages that say otherwise. More anon, if sanity holds long enough under the strain of reading this material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

God forbid I should cause you stress with these questions!:-) Plantsurfer (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank the deity for that proscription! ;-) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far - it was issued by proxy! ;-)Plantsurfer (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To add to the evidence re the international association, they say "TAXON is the bi-monthly journal of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy and is devoted to systematic and evolutionary biology". Now if Taxon isn't about taxonomy, what is?! Is "taxonomy" becoming a term to avoid, like "botany"? Instead of "botanical taxonomy" (so last century) we have "plant systematics". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been a reluctance to use the word taxonomy, as Quentin Wheeler wrote in his 2008 book The New Taxonomy (note the title) ""When Julian Huxley edited The New Sytematics in 1940, he may not have appreciated fully the extent to which it would provide the battle cry for those who would dilute, detract from and eventually decimate taxonomy." I, for one, would argue that avoiding a word is not a good approach, though. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with that, just wonder whether the article should state that case, and whether the variety of alternative words/phrases used in the article makes it more complicated for the reader to understand. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. I think we if we try to explain all this we'll make matters worse. Let's go with one term, whatever we feel is the most prevalent today, and stick with it. 512bits (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't read the essay here, which does seem to confirm the view that the most common usage now is systematics = taxonomy, regardless of what the historical or logical uses are. So I think the section heading is right, and we should give a short definition, something along the lines of the relationships of organisms and their evolutionary history. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I just reread it too, like it very much, and have added a citation to it in Taxonomy (biology). It is a blog, but one of those extremely scholarly blogs. I've searched for a published version of it, but suspect that no such thing has appeared yet. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the section title to "Systematic botany" – this seems to me actually less contested as to its definition than "systematics" alone. I've added a source and slightly copy-edited the opening to explain that systematic botany is related to classification, taxonomy and phylogeny – which are the actual subjects of the section. Does this work? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does, that is much better. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's better now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

I am the one that broke the bibliography into different sections. But it appears this is rather unusual for wikipedia. Shall I merge it all into one section like I see on other articles? 512bits (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that. I find the current method a bit complicated. But then I am a dinosaur.Plantsurfer (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought the division was useful for what is a top-level overview article, but then I added a few sources and realized that the sections overlap. So I think that it may be best to have a single section. On the other hand it would be useful to readers to be able to flag up some further reading at the approximate level of Wikipedia, though I'm not quite sure how best to do this. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some refs that were in use and are not now in use due to all the editing that has occurred. Is there an easy way to tell that? I'll see if I can figure some out. 512bits (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

This sentence in Evolution: "The ancestors of angiosperms are a sister clade to the gymnosperms." Ambiguous. Discuss. Are not angiosperms a sister clade to gymnosperms? Are not the ancestors of angiosperms part of the same clade? Plantsurfer (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

On the Hybrid Origin of the Angiosperms. G. Ledyard Stebbins Evolution Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1958), pp. 267-270. Does anyone still hold to that view or one like it? I've no idea. Perhaps that wasn't the point though. I don't see how "ambiguous" could apply here.Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source given, but on the basis of other sources, I think the following may be meant. (1) "Angiosperms" are defined by apomorphies. (2) When extinct plants are included, the sister clade of gymnosperms contains plants which are not, by this definition, angiosperms. (3) Hence the source of the statement doesn't want to say that angiosperms are sister to gymnosperms.

However, it should be ok (on the basis of most current phylogenies) to say that living (extant) angiosperms and gymnosperms are sister clades. However, there are signicant sources with cladograms showing non-monophyletic gymnosperms (the older morphological view), e.g. this 2013 paper. So we need to be careful in what we say here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Plant Physiology

"The energy of sunlight, captured by photosynthesis and released by cellular respiration, is the basis of all life." Not true. Marine communities in deep ocean can obtain all the energy requirements from sulphur reduction by . This sentence therefore needs subtle alteration. I would prefer to say "..basis of terrestrial life" (Botany being mainly concerned with Land Plants) but this fails if terrestrial is read as life on earth. Any other views? Help. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"the basis of almost all life" is true, but it would be nice to have a number, e.g. the relative energy capture by photosynthesis and chemosynthesis. I haven't been able to find one so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"The sporophyte generation may become nonphotosynthetic at a certain stage of its life." Sourced, but terminally vague. What is it on about?? This sounds like a misunderstanding imo. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

From the context, this comment seems meant to apply to non-vascular plants, so it may be true but certainly isn't clear! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have copy-edited it now, so hope the new edits are clear. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR of article

Currently the ENGVAR of the article is inconsistent, e.g. it has "colour" (BrE) and "fiber" (AmE). If it is to be taken through to FA status (which seems highly possible now), editors need to know the ENGVAR to ensure consistency.

• The article was created by an anonymous editor, and the first edits were by many different people, so a coherent style doesn't seem to have been established.
• MOS:RETAIN suggests looking at the first non-stub version, which is a bit complex, because the article went in and out of stub status, as material was taken out and moved to Plant. this is perhaps the first non-stub version under the current concept. It has "specialized", a marker of either AmE or Oxford BrE, but no good indicators like "color" vs. "colour".
• The first large addition, which firmly established it as a non-stub, was by User:Dullhunk, who isn't around now. S/he uses British spellings, both additions to the article (e.g. "utilise") and in his/her edit comments (e.g. "capitalisation"). At the end of his/her edits, there are only BrE spellings (the earlier "specialized" has disappeared).

So I think that by MOS:RETAIN, the article should probably be marked as in British English, and its style adjusted accordingly. Does anyone have any other views or objections? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: the dashes are currently inconsistent between spaced en-dash (usual style in modern BrE) and unspaced em-dash (usual style in AmE). When the ENGVAR is agreed, these should be sorted accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up weeks ago but no one paid attention to it. If an article is tied to a locality, it's easy. But otherwise it's not so easy. MOS:Retain gives preference to the person with first mover advantage, which is not a method I like. An article being edited by a group mostly from one geographic area will tilt to that area. As to this Botany article, I'm not sure what to do except to say spelling, format, dashes, etc should be consistent.512bits (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But to make them consistent, we have to pick an ENGVAR, and we do need strict consistency for FA. (I don't have any personal views on this article either way: I write new articles in Oxford BrE, but have taken AmE articles to GA.) All I can say is that following MOS:RETAIN by looking at the first major addition after stub status suggests BrE to me, and in this case there seems no other obvious way of making a decision. But I'm happy to go along with any other consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As no-one has objected, I'm going to add the relevant template here and copy-edit the article accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as things are consistent.512bits (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not good at copy-editing on screen, so I'm currently working on a printed copy and will be back.

One thing needed for FA is alt text describing the images, if anyone has time to look at this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to take a good hard look at all the images and consider their notability, their connection with the accompanying text and their image quality. We all love Pinguicula, but I am not sure why it appears here as the article's first image. Crantz was a botanist, but the image says little about him or the subject, and lacks connection with the article. Hibiscus isn't the first plant one thinks of when considering the Scope and importance of Botany, so why is it representing this section? Rice to illustrate a section on human nutrition is good, but is this the best image available? A picture can only be worth a thousand words if it is the right picture in the right place. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The images need to illustrate botany and things botanists do, rather than plants as such. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gallery of alternative images

• 
  might use this to replace Hibiscus. Its advantage is that it shows the product of the study of the plant, a prepared herbarium specimen.
• 
  Twinflower, Linnaea borealis, Caprifoliaceae, named after Carl Linnaeus
• 
  re Spice trade - Fruits of nutmeg showing the aril (mace)
• 
  This would be good to illustrate Plant Anatomy
• 
  Rhynia, a Devonian vascular plant fossil from Rhynie chert showing anatomical preservation
• 
  A botanist at work in the herbarium
• 
  A gymnosperm (cycad) cone showing the naked seeds
• 
  A botanical illustration showing the morphology of the rice plant
• 
  Cyperus papyrus culms were used by the ancient Egyptians to make papyrus for writing.
• 
  Carboniferous "Stanhope tree", Co. Durham UK and living angiosperm trees.
• 
  Flowers of Arabidopsis thaliana, Brassicaceae, model plant.
• 
  The Calvin cycle
• 
  Micropropagation of transgenic plants
• 
  Engraving of Cork cells from Hooke's Micrographia - the discovery is referred to in the article

You already made changes I would have made, but how about Arabidopsis thaliana as the lead photo? 512bits (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more issues

Closed

• The article currently says: "In 1754 Carl von Linné (Carl Linnaeus) divided the plant Kingdom into 25 classes ... For the purposes of identification, Linnaeus's Systema Sexuale classified plants into 24 groups according to the number of their male sexual organs." Now 1754 is the 5th edition of Genera Plantarum and 25 is what it says at Carl Linnaeus#Genera Plantarum, but is this correct? What are the "25 classes" as opposed to the "24 groups"? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 has corrected Carl Linnaeus#Genera Plantarum to 24, so I'll fix this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "... and dispersal vectors distribute spores and seeds." If "dispersal vectors" is used here, it should be explained, but doesn't it just mean "things that distribute spores and seeds"? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done – fixed by Plantsurfer. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Plants are the fundamental base of nearly all terrestrial food chains". It's the word "terrestrial" which bothers me. Yes, if we define "plants" as embryophytes, then it's only true for land-based food chains. However, many textbooks don't make this distinction in this context, so it appears a slightly odd qualification. Maybe "Plants and other photosynthetic organisms are the fundamental base of nearly all food chains"? I'm not sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the word fundamental much in this context or nearly all, so what about "Plants and other photosynthetic organisms are at the base of most food chains." Plantsurfer (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Coleoptiles and phototropism

 Done

1. A maize coleoptile with the sun overhead. Auxin (pink) is evenly distributed in its tip. 2. With sun at an angle auxin moves to the opposite side and stimulates cell elongation there, 3,4. causing the shoot to follow the sun.

The picture used under Botany#Plant hormones depicts auxins migrating to the shaded side of the coleoptile causing cell elongation, but according to the textbook I have (), in most plants (not grass), it's actually a growth inhibitor that collects on the lit side of the stem that causes the curving. Plus, where in the image description page does it say the plant shown is corn?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The author of the image just refers to it as a "normal plant" (whatever that might be) and doesn't say corn, but it surely is a coleoptile - just look at it. No self-respecting dicot shoot looks like that, and the classical experiments on auxin were done using maize coleoptiles. However, my caption is just a précis of the original image caption, and if you know that it is incorrect please feel free to edit it. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The explanation and illustrations in Mauseth (2012, 5th ed., p. 351) are precisely as per the image caption. It specifically mentions an oat coleoptile. So I'll edit the article to source to this. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

 Done The evolution section makes the unsourced claim that the earliest true seeds date from Middle Devonian. That is incorrect. True seeds by the article's own definition are integumented ovules, and the earliest stages of enclosure of pteridosperm pre-ovules with an integument can be seen in latest Devonian (Late Famennian) species such as Moresnetia and Elkinsia e.g. . The early Carboniferous species Stamnostoma (Long, A.G. (1960) Stamnostoma huttonense gen. et sp. nov. - pteridosperm seed and cupule from the Calciferous sandstone series of Berwickshire. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 64, 201-215) is the first to have its ovule properly integumented. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of botanical species

 Done According to lede, "Nowadays, botanists study about 400,000 species of living organisms." What is the source for that number, and what groups does it cover? According to Judd (see ref in article) the Tracheophytes number some 260,000 species of which about 248,000 are flowering plants. I think those numbers would make more sense to the "average reader" and at the same time illustrate the overwhelming dominance of Angiosperms. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Groups? Possibly the most reliable current indicator of the range of organisms within the purview of Botany is the range covered by the International Botanical Congress and the ICN, which covers plants, algae, and fungi. No viruses there, although I acknowledge that plant viruses are studied by some botanists. So also are some bacteria (e.g. Rhizobium) and nematodes, but if there has to be a defined cut-off point, I suggest that the groups specified in the title of the ICN would be a good way to define it. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So what are we doing on this point? 512bits (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done

• "The ideas of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution required modifications to the Candollean system, which started the studies on evolutionary relationships and phylogenetic classifications of plants." What started "the studies"? Natural selection? Modifications to the Candollean system? I'm not sure what is meant here. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be referring to natural selection. It does need a tweak.512bits (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading this ref [1], I've convinced this clause refers to Candolle, I will tweak and add the ref. Let me know if any disagrees. 512bits (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have this right. Candolle's classification scheme was not intended to reflect evolution or phylogeny, but a concept of increasing complexity. Solely in that respect his classification was allied to Linnaeus's, but Candolle did not limit his scope to male organs, considering the broader picture. Bentham and Hooker built their classification along Candollean lines, again making no attempt to reflect evolution or phylogeny, but as the article you use as source states "the author's general ideas of morphological complexity". Darwin/Wallace changed all that. Your source article states "Classifications after Darwin and Wallace were predicated on an understanding of descent and evolution". That continues to be true. In fact descent, evolution, phylogeny are of overriding importance in modern botanical classification - as far as morphological complexity is concerned it is often misleading and, frequently, less is more. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, then reword it. 512bits (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, the bones of what I would want to say are in the above (clearly they will need cleaning up). Judd et al. (2002) Plant systematics a phylogenetic approach. on page 5 put the point about Darwin's influence like this: Publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 stimulated the incorporation of general evolutionary relationships into classification, an ongoing process that has yet to be realized. This is therefore a good source for the idea that there has been a paradigm shift towards phylogenetic systematics following the assimilation of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Open

• "Unlike in higher animals, where parthenogenesis is rare, asexual reproduction may occur by several different mechanisms." Parthenogenesis is defined in its article as "a form of asexual reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization", so it's not in contrast to stem tubers. The analogy with stem tubers would surely be something like budding in hydrozoans. Two different things seem to be run together here here: vegetative reproduction and non-vegetative apomixis. User:Sminthopsis84 has edited the apomixis article, so may be able to clarify this text; apomixis seems to be a very complex concept! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not at all sure about the Evolution section. It seems to be trying to give an overview of the evolution of plants in a few paragraphs, which doesn't really work for me. Shouldn't it try to say something about the importance of evolution as an underpinning to botany and how botanists use and research evolutionary issues, rather than try to describe the evolutionary history of plants? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(referring to Judd et al.) On page 3 they make the following remark: Systematics is not just descriptive (as were the classifications of de Candolle and B&H) but aims to discover (my bold) evolutionary relationships and real evolutionary entities that have resulted from the process of evolution. We also assume that evolutionary modifications within these lineages have happened and will continue to happen. I wonder Peter coxhead whether this is useful material for the Evolution section.??

The logical consequence of that understanding is that species names are merely snapshots in time, and that for some taxa it is clear that they have already changed almost before they have been fully described, but I don't know of suitable botanical taxa and sources to illustrate that. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the general issue that species are merely snapshots in time, Podani has written about this very clearly (e.g. Podani, J. (2010), "Taxonomy in Evolutionary Perspective : An essay on the relationships between taxonomy and evolutionary theory" (PDF), Synbiologia Hungarica, 6: 1–42) but not specifically in the context of botany. In the case of plants, there are two different issues which challenge the species concept: (1) change within a species over time, which also applies to animals (2) widespread hybridization between "species", which is rare in animals. Dactylorhiza in the UK, Ophrys everywhere are examples of the difficulty of defining species when hybrid swarms are frequent occurrences. I would like to work (2) into the article somewhere: along with polyploidy it represents an important difference between plants and animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I think those are very important points. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you guys want to do in order to wrap up this improvement effort is fine with me. 512bits (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my "to do" list is almost done (don't quote me), and I think we are at the stage of needing peer review to take this much further. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've got a couple of bits I want to change; I got rather distracted by another article which needed fixing and then another linked to that one – a perennial problem on Wikipedia! I'll try to get back to Botany in the next couple of days. (The alt tags in images need fixing before an FA review.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-pollination

Moving the sentence on self-pollination to the paragraph dealing with asexual reproduction makes little sense. Self-incompatibility is about sexual reproduction and the promotion of outcrossing in monoecious species such as brassicas. Perhaps what is missing here is a statement that many other species, and not just angiosperms, deal with this by being dioecious or dioicous. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I moved it back. I'm not an expert on dioecy, etc, so you might want to write that part.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Over on Peter's page he says he's ok with moving on and indicates he'll yet add a bit more. On my talk page Plantsurfer seems to be ready to move on to. Consequently, I have nominated this at peer review. I hope we get some some good, constructive reviews there. 512bits (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review results in. I'll start on them. Help appreciated. Link here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Botany/archive1 512bits (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done several of these. Will continue later. 512bits (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Spice trade: I've removed this sentence which was queried in the review: "The spice trade was of great economic and political importance during the Middle Ages, driving world exploration." I think it could be expanded in the body of the article and then something put back in the lead, but I'm not quite sure what. However, if it's removed altogether, the image is wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. I can see the garden connection, but I think the spice trade is delving too far into economics. I don't the image is out of place. In fact, I've grown to like it. 512bits (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just answered the last Peer Review item. I'm not sure how long we should let that run. I think the reviewer did a really good job. Some have mentioned getting this to "featured" status. 512bits (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Plant Biochemistry

Is there a plant biochemist in the house? We need a short paragraph on Plant Biochemistry that balances the existing Biochemistry section by outlining what the study of the biochemistry of primary metabolism is about. At present it is biased towards commercially useful secondary products. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone condense info from Plant physiology? 512bits (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

unfortunately, that article lacks sufficient depth of the kind we need :-( Plantsurfer (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, Katherine Esau's Plant anatomy books are referred to but not cited. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A basic plant biochemistry outline could be:

• +/– compartmentalization
• photosynthesis all the way to storage products
• nitrogen (and sulfur)
• membranes (and lipids)
• secondary metabolites moved into this section
• genes, reproduction and growth

Esau's book, although old, would be an excellent source for Wikipedia editors to use for plant physiology. That article's section on biochemistry should be removed, it is a jumble of words. -AfadsBad (talk)|

This draft is what I have in mind for the Biochemistry section, not an account of the general biochemistry that is common to all organisms, but a pointer to those aspects of biochemistry that are unique to or particularly characteristic of plants. More sources may still have to be added. Please help with this:

Aspects of plant biochemistry that are unique to plants include the synthesis of a number of unique polymers, the polysaccharide molecules cellulose, pectin and xyloglucan from which the plant cell wall is constructed, and the storage polysaccharides starch, (used in most land plants) and inulin used in the sunflower family Asteraceae. Cellulose is synthesized by an enzyme complex embedded in the cell membrane, while matrix polysaccharides are synthesized in the Golgi apparatus and exported into the cell wall. During growth, the cell wall must expand, and this is enabled by breaking and splicing the polysaccharide chains using specialized enzymes such as xyloglucan endotransglycosylase The phenylpropanoid polymer lignin is an innovation or synapomorphy of vascular land plants that is used to make the xylem cell walls more rigid and able to withstand the tension in the water column that results from water stress is also used in the thickened cell walls of xylem fibre cells. The monomers of lignin, coniferyl alcohol, paracoumaryl alcohol and sinapyl alcohol are synthesized from the amino acid phenylalanine. Sporopollenin, a chemically-resistant polymer found in the outer cell walls of spores and pollen of land plants, is responsible for the survival of early land plant spores and the pollen of seed plants in the fossil record. Lipid synthesis in plants occurs largely in the chloroplasts. The unique lipid polymer cutin that waterproofs the aerial surfaces of all land plants is a polyester made from omega hydroxy acids that are synthesized only in the epidermal cells from palmitic acid made by the chloroplasts of the mesophyll cells. Sucrose, the familiar table sugar and the sugar that is transported in the phloem of plants, is a disaccharide composed of a glucose and a fructose molecule. It is made only by plants and cyanobacteria by the enzyme Sucrose-phosphate synthase. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is much lower than it was when plants emerged onto land during the Ordovician and Silurian periods. Many grasses, including maize and Sorghum, use the C₄ carbon fixation pathway for photosynthesis that avoids the losses resulting from photorespiration in the more common C₃ carbon fixation pathway. Crassulacean acid metabolism is a strategy used in the Crassulaceae and a number of other families including the pineapple family Bromeliaceae to accumulate carbon dioxide into malic acid at night, and use it to produce CO₂ with the stomata closed during the heat of the day, in order to reduce water loss. These biochemical strategies and the glycolate oxidase pathway are unique to land plants.

Plantsurfer (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is no organization in this, it is a shotgun of various end products of biochemical processes without order, moving from polymers to monomers, lipds, sugars, evolution of the atmosphere, the carbon cycle specifics, then close with a comment about the glycolate oxidase pathway? This is not keeping it at a general level of high importance, although the large amount of chemical text makes it hard to read. I am of the opinion that writing from a high level outline could create an appropriate introductory level section on biochemistry, but this shotgun approach will not. -AfadsBad (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The part on cell plate formation seems correct though a bit irrelevant, and do we really need the enzyme names here? Agree with AfadsBad—in general this paragraph just looks like infodump. It's a really useful marble block, just needs to be chiseled down into that sculpture of words that FA requires. Also I am so stealing the part on cutin for the Chloroplast article. 😏—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we missing the point here gentlemen?? A large fraction of biochemistry is common to all organisms. Much of it is the same in plants and animals. Standard amino acid/protein chemistry, lipids, respiration etc. is all covered in Biochemistry. No way do we reiterate all that here. We have very little space. What we have to do, imho, is feature the aspects of biochemistry that are uniquely botanical, that represent the biochemical innovations that define plants. That's what the ""info dump"" above is about. Land plant evolution is characterized by a series of biochemical innovations, namely the capacity to synthesize polymers such as cellulose, sporopollenin, xyloglucan, cutin, lignin, (probably) in chronological order. This is not info dump, it outlines key steps of land plant evolution, without which none of us would be here. Glad you like the cutin bit Kelvinsong. Don't forget the epicuticular waxes. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And photosynthesis has no place in a botany article, because the article should cover land plant evolutionary trends only? I am not following you, here. This is the botany article, and I think my high level outline is on target, and the jumbled infodump will get the same criticism in a FA review. Anyway, I think if you consult plant biochemistry books you might agree, although this seems like the request for assistance was a set-up. -AfadsBad (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict

Well I get the feeling that it starts out that way and then loses its focus. A reader will probably come out of that paragraph thinking "wait what was I reading again?". I don't know if this is much better, but I took a shot at rewriting that paragraph (I think we should leave out or move the C₄ stuff if we're not going to mention photosynthesis)

Lots of aspects of biochemistry are common to all organisms, but some are unique to plants. Plants (and algae ^{(needs investigation regarding pectins and xyloglucans)}) are special in that they produce large quantities of certain polysaccharides like cellulose, pectin, and xyloglucan which are used in the process of building plant cell walls, as well as some storage polysaccharides like starch. When a plant's cells grow, they use special enzymes to break the crosslinks between the polymer chains in their cell walls allowing them to stretch. Plant cells also make polymers like lignin which go into the secondary cell walls of certain plant cell types to make them stronger—like in xylem tracheids and vessels where lignin helps prevent their cell walls from imploding when a plant sucks its water through them, and in other cells that provide support for a plant. Plants also have other tough polymers like sporopollenin (shared with some close relatives too) which protect their pollen grains and spores.

Plants and their close relatives have a unique organelle—the chloroplast—which plants have delegated many biochemical roles to besides photosynthesis. Unlike in animal cells, plant cells make all of their fatty acids in their chloroplasts. These fatty acids are used for many things like making the epidermal cutin that protects plants from drying out. In a plant's immune response, the chloroplast churns out a bunch of molecules that fight disease.

Sucrose, also known as common table sugar, can only be made by plants, cyanobacteria, and proteobacteria. Plants use the enzyme Sucrose-phosphate synthase to make it (some cyanobacteria employ different enzymes; little is known about how proteobacteria do it). Plants are thought to have inherited the ability from their chloroplasts (cyanobacterial endosymbionts).

(Little is known about sucrose biosynthesis in algae, so we may want to leave this part out).

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should focus on the uniqueness of plant biochemistry. 512bits (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Plant biochemistry is the study of the chemical processes used by plants in their general or primary metabolism including the Calvin cycle and crassulacean acid metabolism used in photosynthesis,[67] and in the synthesis during growth of the specialised materials used in their construction, such as cellulose and lignin."

I don't understand this opening sentence's emphasis at all. This is way too detailed, and the emphasis is on certain non-primary aspects of parts of plant biochemistry. Does plant biochemistry exclude C3 and C4 photosynthesis, is it only about parts of photosynthesis? All of my plant biochemistry texts have the first half of the book about photosynthesis, not about CAM and the Calvin cycle. This section is completely misleading for the general reader, and I am looking for a template that says this. Still, I understand that my contribution/suggestion will be completely ignored, and that is okay, but the alternative results are not good for the reader. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast lipid synthesis

This may not even be relevant, but the part on chloroplasts making all the lipids (in that giant Biochemistry block that Plantsurfer put there last night, (nice work by the way!) ) seemed kinda suspicious. On very light investigation, I found this abstract that says the chloroplast and the endoplasmic reticulum work together to assemble the chloroplast's fatty acids into lipids. I think I also read somewhere else that the endoplasmic reticulum exports assembled lipids back to the chloroplast. Will look more into this later.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The point about carotenoids and plants and algae is that those groups synthesize them. That is one of the characters that distinguishes the green algae from other algae that use phycobilins. If they are everywhere as you say (they are in egg yolk, for example and the retina of the human eye) it is because these heterotrophic organisms eat plants or green algae, not because they synthesize them. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But the green algae aren't the only algae that make carotenoids. Rhodophytes, glaucophytes, etc. all have them too—see 1. In fact the carotenoid article says that fungi make them too.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Carotenoids comprise a large family of C40 polyenes and are synthesised by all photosynthetic organisms, aphids, some bacteria and fungi alike." Carotenoids in nature: insights from plants and beyond Christopher I. Cazzonelli Functional Plant Biology, 2011, 38, 833–847. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Biochemistry - Medicine and materials

The last paragraph of Biochemistry introduces secondary metabolism. Are you happy with it where it is, or should it be moved into the Medicine and materials section? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

News to me that what plant biochemists do is study secondary metabolism. I will get my group off of all that oher stuff immediately. But, yes, I know, my comments are not part of the rewrite. Good in ways. -AfadsBad (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you are welcome here, and since your expertise seems to be in this area your views should be duly considered, but you have tended to speak mainly in negatives, so it is difficult to know how to take account of them. I see secondary metabolism clearly as part of biochemistry - but not as the focus of it. That was the whole point of my recent additions and those of Kelvinsong, to respond to the reviewer's criticism that the article majored on secondary products. There surely cannot be any very clear demarcation between the study of primary metabolism and secondary metabolism. If, as you seem to argue, the chemistry of secondary metabolism should not be dealt with under the heading of Plant Biochemistry, how would you recommend the topic should be treated? If you see ways to make positive improvements in the article can you please discuss further this here? Plantsurfer (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not said it should not be dealt with under biochemistry, in fact, the opposite, in my suggestion above, where I said it should be moved into this section, which everyone ignored. I think it would be easier to start at a high level with a broad discussion of biochemistry, but the consensus is some type of random fact farm. Seems time-wasting to me. Like my wasting my time researching and putting together my comment above. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, by picking and choosing random facts, and then researching these out of individual articles, you are making errors of fact and of weight. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maintaining appropriate overall balance is difficult in an article as broad as this. I don't think it's at all fair to say that the consensus is "some type of random fact farm". The editors who have been working hard on this article started with what was there, which was much more of a set of random facts than it is now.

Often the way forward is to look at some standard textbook's coverage, and to map this in the article. Any suggestions? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That seemed like a good idea, so I ran through the five biochemistry textbooks on my shelf and put together the outline I posted above. The same one where I suggested moving the secondary metabolites into the biochemistry section. The one that everyone is ignoring for some reason. That was and is still my suggestion. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the books I used: Buchanan, Gruissem and Jones, 2002; Bowsher, Steer and Tobin, 2008; Lea and Leegood, 2nd, 1999; Gleason and Chollet, 2011 (online one, actually); and Heldt's 3rd, 2004. Mostly older, but newer outlines are similar, and all are plant biochemistry books. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't claim to agree with your comments about random fact farm, but no matter. I admit that I had misunderstood what you were trying to say, and while I agree with some of it I don't agree with other bits. The main problem here is that we are trying to make a basic summary, not a full account of what is a very big subject. Whereas with some other sections of the article we have been able to rely on some reasonably adequate main articles to deal with the detail, here we are faced with the sad fact a) that there is no article on Plant Biochemistry and that b) such material as there exists is either stuck in a completely inadequate section in Plant Physiology (you think the same on this I gather), or is scattered about in multiple other articles. I personally object strongly to the whole topic of Plant Biochemistry being stuck in an article on Plant Physiology. It may work well enough in a textbook like Taiz & Zeiger, where there is enough space to write chapters in sufficient depth, but that is not how WP works. I think we should create the Plant Biochemistry article, and write it up properly. Perhaps your ideas could be put to best use doing that. If the idea has any peer support, I would be delighted to help in any way I possible can, although, as I have said previously, Biochemistry is not my specialist area. Best wishes, Plantsurfer (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I still suggest that my outline, with just a few sentences, without specific "Chloroplasts and cyanobacteria contain the blue-green pigment chlorophyll a.[68] Chlorophyll a (as well as its plant and green algal-specific cousin chlorophyll b)[a] absorbs light in the blue-violet and orange/red parts of the spectrum while reflecting and transmitting the green light that we see as the characteristic colour of these organisms" is usable; but, I also see it will be entirely ignored. This sentence is not about botany, or even biochemistry in the summary sense; it is about some details of photosynthesis. Biochemistry, at the high level outline, is what botanists study to understand energy pathways, and photosynthesis is about molecules (a primary unit of biochemists) that convert light energy to chemical energy to make other molecules that the plant uses to create cell walls and control growth and reproduction; that's a basic summary, not chlorphyll a's absorption spectra!

The section on plant biochemistry in this article is picky, disorganized, and misses the main points, often due to undue emphasis on random points. Plant biochemistry is about the study of how plants make chemical molecules, ultimately from sunlight. What we have instead is this detailed section on specific molecules and details of those molecules without any overall context. You wind up not even wikilinking any of the fundamentals of biochemistry, because that information is lost in a too long sections full of randomly weighted details specific to subtopics. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A suggested workable summary based on plant biochemistry textbooks

• [2]

I thought the original request for a possible paragraph length outline was reasonable. So, I responded with this post:

A basic plant biochemistry outline could be:

• +/– compartmentalization
• photosynthesis all the way to storage products
• nitrogen (and sulfur)
• membranes (and lipids)
• secondary metabolites moved into this section
• genes, reproduction and growth

It's been thoroughly ignored while a dense discussion of specific molecules and processes has been added to the botany article. This is a botany article, not a plant biochemistry article. The absorption spectra of chlorophyll a will not help general readers understand what plant biochemists study and how that is related to botany.

Botany is the study of plants, and part of the study of plants is, of course, how they grow and reproduce. They grow and reproduce by turning sunshine into molecules and transporting these molecules through the plant, as needed, inside and via specialized compartments within each plant cell (unlike a group of specialized cells organized into an organ in an animal). The process of converting sunlight into chemical energy is called photosynthesis. Plants require nitrogen and sulfur for specialized aspects of their biochemistry. They make cell membranes that create the individual compartments. The molecules that plants make are involved in their reproduction, in addition to growth. Plants create many useful secondary molecules that are used by humans or protect the plants from predation, among other things. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two things left from the peer review: this biochem section and the fact that the article's technical level is inconsistent (which is from many different editors writing it) and too deep in places for an encyclopedia level article. I have to agree that this biochem section, while good and accurate, is too technical. It's also too long, it's the longest section in the article and hence has undue weight. The parts that get cut would serve well in the Biochemistry article. 512bits (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Move/split proposal

I suggest that most of the content of this article (basically everything except the first section) be moved over Outline of botany, which is currently just a collection of wikilinks, not an article (and so is contrary to several parts of WP:NOT). Under this title I think the present material could be worked up into an FA. What's left can then be added to in the style of Biology#Study and research so that it's about the discipline not the content. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

FA nomination

(In response to User:Plantsurfer) I don't think this article is ready for FAC, but it's really close. I think the biggest problem, as 512bits said, is the prose. We need to talk about how many fancy words many of you have added to this article. When I read it, it's pretty clear that a bunch of British scientists (no offense) wrote most of it, in both the good and the bad way. Someone should be appointed to go through the article and smooth out the tone; if you think my writing is too casual that's fine, but let's make it consistent (and preferably less crusty).

To AfadsBad—yeah, that section definitely sounds like Moleculedump, but in my opinion, chlorophyll a and b's absorption spectrum is important because it explains why most plants are green. (A lot of people think plant leaves absorb green light making them green instead of reflecting/transmitting the green light back and absorbing the rest.)—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plantsurfer and 512bits, both of you should not feel bad at the recent "oppose" votes at FAC. Take the advice for what it's worth and continue improving the article (the FAC process, like any other review process, is meant to find flaws). If this first candidacy does not go through, follow the suggestions and try again in two or three weeks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That plants are green because of specific molecular absorption spectra seems to be a sticking point, in fact all molecular information is a sticking point to one or two of the main editors of this article, so there appears to be no way to get off of molecules and onto botany. Plant biochemistry is a major part of botany, and plant biochemists study chlorophyll molecules because they absorb light energy. They can't use all of the sunlight that hits the leaves, only specific wavelengths; the light that they don't use is largely reflected back and this reflection makes the leaves green. We're not training biochemists; we're writing a general article about the field of botany. But, in this article, we have no room to discuss the field, because of the molecule dump. In addition, this molecular dump is problematic because some of it is wrong. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

A good critique from the nomination page

So I see that this article has been nominated already, and I saw a comment worth reposting here:

"Oppose Basic question: what is this article about, botany or plants? After the History section, the article goes on extensively about plants—their importance, their internal chemistry, their genetics, how they interact with the environment and how they are classified. But all this belongs to the plant article. The focus of this article should be the meta-aspects (for want of a better phrase) of botany. For eg: how is botany subdivided? (it is telling that branches of botany is relegated to the See also) what are the different approaches to studying it (for eg social sciences have a structuralist approach and a Marxist approach etc)? Are there any ongoing debates? What are the major prizes awarded for stellar work in botany? And so on.—indopug (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)"

This is something I noticed for a while but had no clue how to fix, so I went along with it, duplicating the Plant article. Of course not working in the field, I know almost nothing about the meta aspects, but User:Indopug has a few good suggtions someone should write about. I suppose organizations like the ASPB and journals like Plant Physiology and The American Journal of Botany should be mentioned too.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plant anatomy and morphology

Well, considering I wrote most of this section I'm sad to see it go, but applying fresh scrutiny to it, I don't think it belongs here. I move to cut it and replace it with a shorter section on plant cultivation (Descended from the part on Saintpaulia and asexual propogation).—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this most strongly. The solution is not to go around cutting stuff from the article, but to consider whether the presentation of the existing material can be improved to bring it into the required focus. If it cannot, then it must be removed of course, but we need to consider carefully every proposal to cut. The article contains excellent material, and I think it would be an act of vandalism to wreck it. I think you should consider the role of Plant Anatomy and Morphology in 19th and early 20th century botanical research. It was a dominant theme. Botany departments were built with the concept in mind that a botanist needed space for his(her) microscope. Labs were for teaching. That change could, should, be reflected in the section perhaps, but to remove the section is inappropriate. Please, let us reflect, discuss and move forward with consensus. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The article does contain excellent material on a variety of topics, much of which might work well in other articles. However, it has missed its topic by a long way, and needs material removed that is more appropriate for other articles to make room for the botany article. Yes, anatomy and physiology were dominant topics in botany, but what we should be telling readers, when, how, and why different aspects of boany dominated the science, not teaching them botanical anatomy, physiology, and chemistry in this article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Look at any plant biology or botany textbook and you will see that anatomy and morphology are important components. Just as a textbook would be very incomplete without anatomy and morphology, so a Wikipedia article on botany would be very incomplete without anatomy and morphology. - (Anandaaa (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)) daaa (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Close the FAC

It clearly won't pass as people don't agree on what the article should be, so we should just close it and stop wasting our time. I did not spend months and over 1000 edits to see the article gutted. 512bits (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably better not do an FAC if you have ownership issues with the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

It's high time you stopped being so pompous and sanctimonious. 512bits (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When you completely ignore someone's input, then stomp off because someone else wants to change your article, it is not gracious to accuse the person you are ignoring of being pompous. The FAC commentary was what you ignored me saying ages ago. Articles on Wikipedia become FAs as a result of consensus; the quality of the articles I see on the main page show that it works. There are huge problems in this article, even where it is topical, and no one is going to grant a no-consensus-needed pass on the issues. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

It's counter-productive to start aiming for each other's throats at this point. Everyone, please avoid making hurtful accusations. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, even those at the FA class. The only problem with this article is the structure. The positive action to take now is discuss how the article should be restructured, nothing more.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, personal attacks are counter productive, both in article and user space. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

@AfadsBad - looking back at your comments here on talk, I can now see that you had this criticism in mind back in June and July. I was focused on other stuff and didn't see what you were trying to say. The problem was not that we were ignoring you, but that you didn't make the argument clearly enough, or with sufficient force. Sometimes you need to shout! Only you can write what is in your mind, we cannot do that for you. To date you have made no actual contributions to the article. If you think you have solutions to current problem, I strongly suggest you get stuck in now, and start putting clear suggestions and draft edits on this page that show how the current problem can be resolved in a conservative way, that is to say, with the least damage to the information content that has already been built up. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the current problem can be resolved in a conservative way. Speaking personally, I had intended to add some material on the way that evolution underpins modern botanical research and thinking, but gave up when I just couldn't fit my drafts into the style of the article. I can see now, but didn't then, that the problem is a lack of clarity as to the purpose of the article.

If you look at Zoology, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, there are some differences between them, but all have a strong focus on the practice of the discipline, rather than its content. So perhaps what's needed is a split:

1. An article on botany/plant science which recognizes that many of the links to "botany" come via [[Botany|botanist]], so that readers expect an account of what botanists do. This would be an article which has a similar structure to Biology.
2. An article which is an "outline of botany", i.e. an article-length overview of the material in a standard textbook of botany like Mauseth. I'm not sure what the title of this article would be. It has been implied that Plant is this article, or could be made into this article, but I think this would be a mistake. Cell biology, biochemistry, systems biology, ecology, evolution, etc. extend beyond what would reasonably be in an article at "Plant".

A practical problem, I think, is that the active editors in WP:PLANTS mostly write "plant articles" (as I do). Such essentially descriptive accounts of whole organisms seem to form a rather small part of modern academic botany, and active researchers in this area seem to be concentrated in herbaria and museums rather than universities and research institutes. So I think many of us are not either well equipped or well motivated to write a Botany article of either kind which is going to satisfy FA reviewers. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for making it about botany rather than plants

I agree with the above discussion of about a year ago that the article needs to be about its title term botany (the study of plants) rather than about plants themselves. I think I see how this could be done while retaining the majority of the current content. I've gone through it on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, for each paragraph looking to see what it's about, and my observations are below. I suggest that the relevant paragraphs be retained and the plant-oriented paragraphs either be discarded or be moved to other articles.

• The lead is entirely about botany.
• The entire section History and all its subsections are entirely about botany.
• The entire section Scope and importance and all of its subsections are entirely about botany.
• Section Plant biochemistry:

• The untitled lead is entirely about plants, not about the study of plants.
• The subsection Medicine and materials is about the uses of plants, but maybe it could be tweaked to focus on what botanists do in this context.

• Section Plant ecology:

• The first paragraph of the untitled lead is about botany.
• The next two paragraphs of the lead are about plants, not botany.
• The subsection Plants, climate, and environmental change appears to be about what botanists do, but could be tweaked to make that more explicit.

• Section Genetics:

• The entire 5-paragraph untitled lead is about plants.
• The subsection Molecular genetics is entirely about botany.
• Except for its first sentence, the entire subsection Epigenetics is about plants.

• The entire section Evolution is about plants, not botany.
• The entire section Plant physiology, including the subsection Plant hormones, is about plants, not botany.
• The entire section Plant anatomy and morphology is about plants and not botany.
• The entire section Systematic botany is about botany.

208.50.124.65 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

fuller etymology

Botany (Greek Βοτάνη - grass, fodder; Medieval Latin botanicus – herb, plant)[Morton, Alan G. (1981). History of Botanical Science: An Account of the Development of Botany from Ancient Times to the Present Day. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-508382-3. ] could be included. As so far botany jumps from the Greek to the English. Latin was the langauage of science (and maybe German and French too!) and these informed the modern English - which is what we should show here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.15.235 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10140

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

plant scientists

Botany is a large field that has many areas in which to specialise ,including the chemical properties of different plants and how these are beneficial to human beings. PLANTS ARE TESTED TO SEE WHETHER THEY ARE POISONOUS OR EDIBLE AND TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY HAVE MEDICINAL PROPERTIES Charmaine Loy (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726104027/https://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf to http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello wikipedians, my suggestion for improving this article would be to create links for the more difficult and complex topics relating to botany such as genetics, and plant biochemistry to other pages. Botany is a science that covers a very wide range of specializations and this huge wave of information may become overwhelming for individuals just looking for a simplified and easy to read article on botany Ecoriam (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Botany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215042638/http://cromatina.icb.ufmg.br/biomol/seminarios/outros/grupo_open.pdf to http://cromatina.icb.ufmg.br/biomol/seminarios/outros/grupo_open.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209225717/http://bioenergy.asu.edu/photosyn/study.html to http://bioenergy.asu.edu/photosyn/study.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/weedhome/pdfs/noxious_weed_plan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103035558/http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Departments/Databases.shtml to http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Departments/Databases.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Plant biochemistry

On my browser the file caption and overlay for the file on the left are displaced below the file and interfere with text. When IP 76.71.159.84 modified these "(→‎Plant biochemistry: page format, overlapping)" on 8 March 2018‎ the caption and overlay became displaced. If others' browsers are showing the same effect, perhaps these two edits should be undone or changed. Comments? --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benny Chan 123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extension request due to global warming

In chemistry several property class extensions were introduced.

I want to suggest a parameter "water requirement per kG plant biomass" on the plant profile. and maybe parameters like adult plant mass. Growth per year. achievable plant age. as on chemistry pages. Wikistallion (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

or precipitation and latitude and temperature range Wikistallion (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Botany

I am fascinated by plant life, and I want to learn more about botany, and maybe become a botanist after I graduate. I’m in the eighth grade, and I was wondering how I could get started, other than doing hikes and growing a garden. NightBlooms47 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)