Talk:Plant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Phyla

This page should have a box on the side listing the different Phyla like the animal page does. --Savant13 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plant Distribution

Distribution is all about plants interaction with humankind, culture and fauna... It's an important theme about plants... So... Don't feel you are correcting anything by taking it out of the page... It's a proper way to further one's understanding of them in relation to us seeing what their distribution is.

I think you are right (Distribution does have a place). The problem is, it is such a broad subject, it is hard to envision how it should be treated in summary form in this article. To do it justice requires a book (or at least another article). I think whomever remarked it out is saying: clean this up ! - Marshman 04:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well... I guess a broad approach to distribution would be based upon taxonomy and common characteristics by which plants can be classified depending on the kind of climate/terrain they inhabit... The number of plant species and varietes per biome or biotope... To give an approximate idea of plant distribution much like some maps give an idea of how many people life in certain areas... Any special plants found alone anywhere in the world being mentioned as extra-facts (maybe some few plants manage to thrive in the cold northernmost sea, the arctic I mean)...

My point. What you have "outlined" could fill a large book. But your idea of classification (largely non-taxonomic) based upon life form by regional climate is a potential approach, but perhaps still too much for general treatment here. Sometimes it is easier to develop the other arrticle and then place her the merest facts with a link - Marshman 01:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen other paes on this kind of matter adress the information on distribution themselves... An address for distribution itelf might exist separately, mentioning disribution of plants and other life which interacts with it...

---

Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification

Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) --mav

Actually, plant nutrition is a two-way street. The photosynthetic formula is that the plant absorbs carbon dioxide and water, and uses sunlight to drive a chemical process that makes sugar and oxygen from them. Human beings do just the opposite -- they take in the sugar and oxygen, reverse the reaction to release energy, and exude water and carbon dioxide. However, plants also absorb nutrients through the roots along with water, and send these throughout the plant's structure. The xylem conducts water and minerals up, the phloem conducts the sugars down. jaknouse 23:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular?

Moved to flowering plant. -Menchi 05:30 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved it back, but now I agree (after reading these comments) it does not belong here. I'll fix. I see there has been a fair bit of discussion about what to include and what not to include on this page. I'm looking things over and I'm inclined to move the back to the Redirect Plantae where it was originally developed as that makes perfect sense botanically. This is a constant problem in natural sciences. There is a "public" perception of what something (like "plant") is, and we tend to want to match that with the article name. But the truth is, these things have been worked out by botanists in ways not necessarily compatible with the common perceptions and we get into trouble trying to satisfy conflicting POVs. I'm sure whoever moved the stuff into Plant was not aware of the conflict that creates because we all think we know what a plant is — how hard can it be to define? But as someone points out and Menchi fixes, the classification of growth does not apply to all plants, and cannot be represented as such. Leaving it here just reinforces the narrow perception that plants are really things like ferns and flowers. I'll work on this problem for awhile. I am cognizant of a need to keep the "public" or common POV right up front. - Marshman 05:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Some stuff moved from botany.

Material to be moved out

This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany

The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted).

• Hepatophyta Marchantiophyta, liverworts
• Anthocerophyta Anthocerotophyta, hornworts
• Bryophyta (Moss)
• Lycophyta Lycopodiophyta, club mosses
• Psilotophyta, whisk ferns
• Sphenophyta, horsetails
• Pterophyta Pteridophyta, ferns
• Cycadophyta, cycads
• Ginkgophyta, ginkgo
• Gnetophyta
• Pinophyta, conifers
• Magnoliophyta, flowering plants
  • Liliopsida, monocots
  • Magnoliopsida, dicots

??Will you accept Algae as plants" 81.144.158.195 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why there is the section about fungi since they form the clade Opisthokonta with animals. Fungi being distant relatives of plants just having a section about plants in the article Animal to inform that plants are not animals. AquamarineOnion 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily include it if I were writing the article, maybe a see also, with a note, however I added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue you raise. KP Botany 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have pictures

I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

To be useful, most (but not all) should have a clear image of the flower. Ecceptions might be those with very distinctive foliage or pictures of individual trees. However, even in the latter cases, an image of the flower would usually be required to begin identification. Assuming you have pictures of flowers, you could post them at Flower_album and see if others can identify. That gets them on Wikipedia with your name and notes for others to place in articles as appropriate -- Marshman 17:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay I can do that but what name to give pic1 pic2 etc? Can the names be changed once uploaded and Identified? -- Belizian

No, they are permanent. But the names of the files are the least of our problem. Do not worry. We will just re-upload with the correct names once we find them out. The image is the important part, because they are not easy to get. So, in the mean time, just say "Star-leaved plant 27.JPG" or something descriptive is ok. --Menchi 01:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Be sure to fill in info about the picture on the photo document page. Include photographer credit, date taken, location, etc. info that you can. Then if we move the pictures to new names, we will be able to retain all the important source information at the new name place (so the name itself is really unimportant) - Marshman 01:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [1]. AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If you look at Wikibooks, and find the biology textbook (also somne xchapters of Invert Zoology), you will see something similar to what you suggest that I made for those articles - Marshman 19:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms.

What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a brief introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure.

If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- Josh

Go ahead and write that intro paragraph you think is needed. I do not think it will help completely as long as we have the big section on Kingdom Plantae taxonomy to deal with at the end. I tried to split that out to Kingdom Plantae a while back, but ran into a person that did not want to discuss, just revert, so I gave up. I think the taxonomy IS a bit intimidating and should go where those really interested can enjoy it. Your suggestion may be a better way to arrange the plant page, I really cannot tell without seeing it first. However, I do NOT think there is any concensus about what "plant" means, just what Plantae means, so that problem should be dealt with somewhere, presumably up front (?) - Marshman 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there isn't a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- Josh

---

Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the two sections of the article. The first section, "Difficulties in the Definition", problematizes the definition of "Plant" by exploring the differences between popular definitions of plant and scientific ones. I did think that some of the statements seemed more speculative than factual; how does one know what is not likely ever to happen, or what will always happen? Is it utterly impossible that plant and Plantae might one day mean the same thing? Is it wise to assert that popular and scientific definitions of a thing will always differ? It seemed enough to explain that popular and scientific definitions presently do differ, and why.

Yes. I tried to split these once upon a time, but ran into opposition. I still think there is as place for both plant and Plantae and it makes a lot more sense to split them (Josh and I had worked out the split, at one time); but another argued that they mean the same thing, and threatened to revert if we split the article. I had no problem with your removal of the speculative part, just the algae "example".

The second section presents a straightforward description of current consensus on the classification and evolution of plants. As defined in this section, it is not inconceivable that one could use "plant" and "Plantae" synonymously. One could understand Wikipedia articles to be an effort to popularize scientific knowledge and usage.

I think both sections are good; but they are addressing somewhat different aspects. Of course all Plantae are plants. The problem is, that not all plants are Plantae (the definitions are different). It seems to me you will never get anyone to accept that, in seaweeds for example, green algae are plants and red algae are not. One is Plantae but both are either plants or both are not. The problem is inherent in the fact that people don't think in phylogenic terms, but more in absolutes. But I agree with your premise about Wikipedia, I just do not see it working any time soon with the term "plant" and I'm not convinced it is always a good idea to force (or expect) a match between scientific and common terminologies. I find the concept of standardizing "common names" (as ornithologists have done) a bit arrogant. Common names belong to the social fabric, not the scientists. But I still get upset when a bison is shown on TV and it is called a buffalo. Go figure; no one said I had to be consistent ;^).

Not sure why cladistics are irrelevant to a discussion of defining Kingdom Plantae. As the article says, "we must include some reference to the classification system in any scholarly effort to gain or give information about them". Current phylogeny tends to favor monophyletic clades, which certainly bears on what contemporary classification systems would consider to be a useful and defensible definition of Plantae. If the groups described in the second section of the article are found to be monophyletic, then it strengthens the argument for maintaining the current definition; if the taxon is found to by polyphyletic, then multiple clades will come into use.

Perfectly relevant to the second part on Kingdom Plantae. I think someone moved it down there from where it was floarting in the middle of the "plant" definition section, where it was out of place. I think your additions to the Plantae section have been excellent—well, except maybe the "lichens" part.

With regard to lichens, I introduced the topic with the intent of explaining that lichens are a symbiote between an alga and a fungus, and to describe where the green algal partners fit in the classification system presented in the second section. Alternately, a lichen could be used to illustrate the difficulties of defining "plant". If lichens can appear only one place in the article, I prefer that they appear where I initially placed them, in the section on evolution and classification, so as to de-problematize them to the extent possible. There is of course no reason that they cannot appear in both sections, as an illustration of the difficulties of definition, and further on to explain where the algal partners fit in the plant classification scheme as it is presented in the article. Tom Radulovich 03:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Information I liked. I moved it up and reworded it so it would be an example for the definition section, but then you moved it back down below again (and reworded to better fit there). It does introduce more problems than it solves, however, under Plantae, since lichens really cannot be classified (the partners can individually). I think another party just moved it out to where it would be most appropriate under lichens. Like you said, it could go in all three places and be made appropriate. I was just unclear why you took it out as an example of why "plant" is not easy to define? - Marshman 06:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Added ==Plants as fossils== Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.

Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are:

• The "common POV" Marshman discusses is not dominant even among popular books, which tend to say that plants produce food through photosynthesis and usually that fungi aren't plants.
• There has not been a single concept of the Plantae. Its composition has changed exactly the same way as that of the plants has, and is still not entirely settled. The differing versions of both are best treated as variations on the same idea.
• Plants are defined less by characters and more by composition. There is a certain core group that everyone includes, the embryophytes (vascular plants leave out moss), and all the definitions are variations on embryophytes and things like them. Plants don't need a hard-and-fast definition, and our focus on it seems uniquely inconvenient.
• In that vein, the vast majority of links and visitors will be assuming this page discusses that core group. Also, future editors, as Tom and Dlloyd prove. As such, discussing that core group is far more important and maintainable than working through the detailed semantics of which other groups to include, and certainly should not be relegated to the second half of the article.
• At the same time, algae and fungi are often considered plants outside of a taxonomic context, so they should be discussed here. I think a brief overview of their similarities and differences relative to the embryophytes does a better job explaining the varying definitions of plant than attempting a thorough enumeration.

It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. Josh 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not respond back because in August I was not working on Wikipedia. But I think the changes you made, while not all "bad" by any means, have just opened this page (article) up to continued problems. The whole idea that the term "plant" has some good match with a taxonomic grouping is simply not the case with our present understanding of the relationships among plant-like organisms. Forcing this fit is what makes problems here. Many of your points above simply miss the mark. For example, the first one: I do not say fungi are always treated as plants, but that they were once (and still are) included within the perview of botanists. In the general mind set, that lists them with plants if not plants themelves. I then pointed out why they might not be plants. Your second point is just confusing: The concept of plants has changed exactly the same way as the concept of plants has?. On your third point: what we had was a broad definition; you changed that to no definition, but a good historical statement. On this point we seem to agree, but you actually moved the text in a direction away from it. On expectations of visitors, I disagree. I think visitors are not expecting a core group but a definition and discussion of what a "plant" is, and why it is not something else (like a fungus as you point out). Emphasizing the difficulty of defining "plant" educates a reader that might have thought it was an easy, straight-forward concept. The "core group" should not even be in the article (although discussed and liberally linked), but elsewhere where a taxonomic approach makes sense. That would clear up the future editing problems. The article is a problem because of a (IMHO) silly Wikipedia concept that common terms should be used everywhere for biological entities, which only makes sense if their is a common term that coincides in boundaries with a taxonomic grouping. Get the "core group" off this page and into its own article(s) like Embryophyta, and this page will return to having meaning instead of being just a confusion. Right now it still implies that "plant" and "Plantae" are the same thing. Sorry, one is a common term and the other a taxonomic grouping. They do not coincide. - Marshman 17:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for rotifers and Rotifera - one is simply a formal version of the other.

I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant embryophytes and things similar to them, and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary it should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it.

Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support.

That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and not just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here.

Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. Josh 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong. I do not "dislike" the way you rewrote the page. I just think it misses some critical points. As for the fungi, I agree, not classified as plants, but certainly considered plants through a long history, and therefore requires here an explain or reason why they are no longer so regarded. The problem with any article based on a common term like plants is that readers come in with all kinds of preconceptions. I'm not saying we need to support all those, but we do need to move them gently in the direction of modern concepts. I have a bigger problem with the seaweeds where I think there is no easy reconciliation. Either seaweeds are plants or they are not. The present situation is that "some of them are".

Someone added some interesting points to the Talk:Flowering plant page with a link to [2] which shows this system of plant classification that makes more sense to me than what we presently are following:

• Living Organisms (clade Biota)
• Eukaryotes (clade Eucarya), i.e. possess a membrane bounded cell nucleus
• Plants (clade Plantae), i.e. possess chloroplasts
• Green plants (clade Viridiplantae) (This article should end here or one level up IMHO)
• Embryophytes or land plants (clade Embryophyta)
• Vascular plants (clade Tracheophyta), i.e. possess tracheids

- Marshman 17:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? Josh 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what the authors meant sensu Plantae regarding chloroplasts. But having that level within Eukaryoytes obviously means there is at least one other group (Prokaryotes) with members that have chloroplasts not in their clade Plantae. I find other subdivisions of chloroplast bearing Eukaryotes a bit specualtive as to when they spilt off and how many endosymbionic events are represented, even though it is firmly established that all higher plants represent only one such evolutionary line (their Viridiplantae). Whether the latter "correspond better with the general concept of plants" indicates you are still trying to match the taxonimic or cladistic approaches to the common term "plant"; and that is where I think things go wrong. Because of historic inclusion of fungi; because of inclusion of all "algae" including some cyanobacteria, in the common sense of "plant" one simply cannot match the term "plant" to a logical scientific concept. Why try to force that fit by saying "plants" are really just "Viridiplantae" or just "Embryophyta"? I say, give the broadest possible definition (sense) of what plants are and then, by reasoning and evidence, show why scientists now regard the true plants to be just a subset of that group. "Plant" is not a common term subject to manipulation and redefining by scientists. "Plants" is plants, and to most people, that includes more than just the "true plants" and more than the "land plants" even though these are the groupings we would agree most people typically refer to as plants.

Of course, this approach requires more than just mentioning embryophtes. It includes all that you say above. What I think we "delete" is just the taxonoic treatment of these higher groups. If you look at the article as I last left it before August, it had a terminating list of links after the "plant definition" section with provided links to all the various groups mentioned. The article should end after that list. All the taxonomy on "true" plants should be moved to articles on Viridiplantae and/or Embryophyta. That way, persons interested in the scientific approach get off on a track that follows current thinking regarding taxonomy and evolution. Persons who still regard mushrooms as a plant form learn first why this may not be a good conceptual approach, but are provided links to the articles on fungi and mushrooms if that be their primary interest. To put another way: a person could be interested in seaweeds and could start at "plants" as a logical entry point. They would find out why all seaweeds might not be true plants, but then find links to the algae and seaweeds to persue their initial primary interest. - Marshman 17:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate.

Discussion of course. Such discussion is essential to an article named "plants" and I certainly did not mean anything like a disambiguation page. I meant end article after the discussion and links, but the discussion should be lengthy and thorough. This is an article on the term "plant" - Marshman

No! This is supposed to be an article about plants, not simply the term. It should be as important, if not more, to explain important aspects of the organisms generally considered plants as it is to explain why certain other groups might or might not be classified with them. In depth systematics of subgroups, among which the embryophytes can now reasonably be counted, should of course go elsewhere but important characteristics, notes about ecology, and things like the fossil section are all entirely appropriate here, even if they don't help define the exact composition of the group.

So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept.

I agree. As to your "on the other hand" - maybe, maybe not. I am uncertain where the spilt should be (see my notes added to the "clasdistics" above). You may well be right that Plantae and Viridiplantae can fit in here strongly. I do think the real taxonomy breakdown of Plantae should be elsewhere in a taxonomy article, but I understand it could be be in more than one place, with simply a more general treatment here. - Marshman

Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either complex multicellular phototrophs, green plants or embryophytes. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria don't have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. Josh 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I saw that "chloroplast" error after I saved my comments, but was unsure what you meant by "chloroplasts" (cholorophyll or actual plastids) so I let it stand. Also, there are green algae that do not fit what you state "most" biologists consider the Kingdom Plantae, and I would argue that biologists do not limit their sense of plants to complex multicellular phototrophs. Quite the contrary, I am a practicing biologist with long previous experience with the algae, and regard all seaweeds (for example) as plants (whether Plantae or not). - Marshman 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry! I simply meant multicellular phototrophs, i.e. including seaweeds - the definition sensu Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like Chlamydomonas. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, some of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). Josh 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a deadline and a stream restoration conference all day tomorrow, so I'll not have time until Wednesday to review what you have done, but the embryophyte article looks good to me. - Marshman 04:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you give up, or are you still planning to make more changes? I find the article confusing as it stands right now. - Marshman 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I gather you gave up. I'm as convinced as ever that this article is just wrong. There is no need to attempt to make "plant" and "Plantae" or "Green plants" match. Botanists do not think they match, so why is this POV pushed here? - Marshman 05:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i reworded a sentence, though perhaps i should have consulted this discussion page first, too late, sorry, buddy-friends... but here's what i did, and the reason why i did it: under "embryophytes" it refered to green algae and said: "plants are distinguished from green algae, from which they evolved, by having a bla bla bla..." i felt it appropriate to clarify that modern plants didn't evolve from contemporaneous modern green algae, but rather evolved from the same thing as green algae, a thing that, it stands to reason, was probably more like green algae than multicellular plants. my rewrite is a bit long-winded, and should probably be rewritten itself, but i believe it is important to clarify that modern things don't evolve from modern things, but share a common ancester, e.g. humans didn't evolve from chipanzees, as commonly mistated, but both evolved from something else, neither Pan nor Homo. i'm new to wikipedia, e-mail me to explain any protocol to follow... slappysallysue@hotmail.com

Reversion of edit

Why was a request for help regarding how to remove a redirect to this page removed by reverting to a previous state?

Sorry, I reverted a typo you made and missed the question you asked at the bottom. My bad. Here is your questions again:

The redirection of Vegetation

Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help...Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC).

Just go to the Vegetation page. It will redirect you right back here, but you will see just below the article title the line "redirected from vegetation". Click on vegetation in that line and it will open up the redirect. You can then edit that page, adding text and deleting the Redirect line—Vegetation will become an article again. You can recover any old text by going to the page history, opening an older version and copying the text to drop into your article. - Marshman 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Plant Defenses to Herbivory

Just as a notice, I am currently working on a full-scale review of plant defenses to herbivory as an additional section to this page that will include an overview of peer-reviewed scientific research in plant defense, historical and present theory, and current studies. I expect to have a draft of the page ready by the beginning of February, and I look forward to members of the national and international community filling in the gaps I may leave out.--Franciepants18 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Are plants sentient and have concious existence do they know that they and other things exist unlike for example a pen-Taracka

If you mean plants "seeing" objects, I highly doubt it. Plants don't have a nervous system. However they can sense and respond to light. For example, auxins and other plant hormones enable plants to react on external conditions and adjust to them. But it's not exactly like the human sensory system. SCHZMO ✍ 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the last reference on Aspects of Plant Intelligence Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Addition to Importance: Plants in Psychology

I remember when I was studying mathematics about the beneficial effects that fractals had on the human mind, as well as a study referenced at one point. Sadly, I don't remember the name or whereabouts of said study, and I don't have access to a scholarly database. I thought I might put the idea out, however, on the positive effects of plants in psychology and that such. Ecopirate 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance and Ecological Relationships sections

I merged part of the Importance section with the Ecological relationships section, then edited and expanded it. The sections overlapped on photosynthesis. The semi-parastic example was changed from eyebright to mistletoe because the eyebright wiki page is a tiny stub. The mistletoe wiki page is a much more informative page. The remainder of the Importance section was expanded and subheadings added. Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some help...

I need information about plants & their nutrients...like How do plants travel through a plant? Where do they come from? where do they go? How does the sun help the plant to grow? Why does a plant need sugar to grow? this are my questions a being looking into every single page about plants & i can't find the answers...thanks...

Sounds like you need someone to do your homework for you first and foremost. I'd start by re-reading what you write : "How do plants travel through a plant?". Your teacher won't be too impressed with this sort of thing. On the off-chance that this is a serious request, you might want to look at the articles on roots, xylem, phloem and photosynthesis (and follow the wikilinks from these where appropriate). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The project

What project maintains this article? Where can i find on Wikipedia a good diagram about the general plant structure that will show me what the major plant's parts are and what their spacial relationship? -- Boris 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

at school we are doing a bush study and we need to find what a plant isi have searched for an hour over the internet but i cant find any infomation can you please help me

Vandalism

After continuous vandalism and nonsense edits over the last 24 hours, I've reverted to the last version that I'm pretty sure was unvandalized, yesterday's version by Eskog. As far as I can tell I'm not deleting any valid edits. MrDarwin 21:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Plant's Fact

How many plant's have been found on 2006?

Also when you are doing a project on plants then what should we chose to do204.210.255.18 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Frank

Internal/External Distribution

I gather that the "Internal Distribution" section refers to allocation, but what does the "External Distribution" refer to? Guettarda 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Plant Systems

There should be a list of different plant systems,and their uses--Tingpeng19:01 22 September 2007

Which systems do you mean? Are those systems found in all plants? This article is about all plants, including mosses and algae. If the systems you mean are only found in one groop of plants, then the information should be on the article for that group. For example, vascular tissue really should be on the page about vascular plants. --EncycloPetey 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Food plants for Lepidoptera

Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history. When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal. An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation. The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies. This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete? Lots on Wikipedia is. If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article. There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores. In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied. I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em). I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it. You can't assume it's purposefully not listed. If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops. Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information? KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I think is inappropriate in level of detail, look at Solanum. The information there is inappropriate at this level, since Solanum species are used as food plants by numerous animals, including many mammals, birds, and also many orders of insects, not just the Lepidoptera. That sentence, in its present isolation, implies that there is no other important grazer. It has nothing to say about evolutionary or other relationships, though of course these may be important. Imc 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo. Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus. Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is. I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention. This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus. I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ice plant.......

I have ice plant at home , its very beautiful. Have u ever heard of it? it grows in Winter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anishgirdhar (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Paleobotany

There is disproportionately too much information on fossil records and extinct plants on this page, which is meant to deal with the whole concept of what a plant is... SuperRuss

Doesn't print in Firefox

I found the error in the source, it is the image block that has ... "branch showing 27 annual growth rings, pale sapwood and dark heartwood" ..., I think the code for it is messed up, when it is removed it prints correctly. Teh420 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Algae does not belong in plantae

Green Algae used to be placed in the Plant kingdom but it no longer is. I am not sure how recent algae was moved to the protista kingdom due to some reasons, but it would be most appreciated if the entry here on plantae was changed to not include algae. Algae is mostly unicellular, most algae cell walls are made of pectin, algae embryo's grow unprotected, and it is aquatic and marine. Ruishi 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon which green algae you are discussing, as the group is paraphyletic. Please see the article on Green algae to learn more about why your arguments have already been dealt with, why some Chlorophyta are properly placed in the plant kingdom and belong in this article, and why not all do. KP Botany 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And inasmuch as the Chlorophyta plus land plants form a monophyletic group, that group is equated to Plantae by many botanists. In fact, if there are chlorophytes that phylogenetically diverge prior to the divergence of the Charophyceae, all green algae must be included in the Plantae.--Curtis Clark 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm old fashioned however I would consider all eukaryotic algae as plants in the Plant Kingdom. The blue-greens of course are not - I'm not quite sure what to do with them.Osborne 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The blue greens are Bacteria. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All algae belong in the phyla Protista, Look it up!!! In every textbook I've read they are classifid as protists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.150.248 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious error. Sentimentality and personal opinion are no reasons for such a lengthy description of green algae. Green algae are classified within the Kingdom Protoctista. I am inclined to delete the entire section, and also the section on fungi. Le chien manquee (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a serious error. Green algae are classified within the Plantae. If you disagree, then please provide a current publication in plant systematics saying so. I can provide several dozen from the past ten years, including articles by phycologists, bryologists, systematists, and paleobotanists, Kingdom "Protoctista" has been dismembered in the last ten years as a grossly paraphyletic group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Picky details?

I noticed in the Importance-Food section:

"Virtually all human nutrition depends on land plants, directly or indirectly. The animals some people eat are mainly herbivores."

Should this be changed to include fish and the plants in that food chain or would that invite arguments about the status of algae? On the other hand, if it is appropriate to specifically refer to a dependence on "land plants," would it be good to also specify that it is the "land animals" (not fish) which are being referred to? Also, (getting more picky here) the current phrasing also seems to ignore the fact that a person who eats a carnivorous animal (such as most food fish if one wanted to include them) would also be getting nutrition from plants indirectly.

--Lex 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

evolution

What's the evolutionary history of plants? How far back can we trace it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Evolutionary history of plants.--Curtis Clark 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Plants "recognize" their siblings?

I saw this link on Slashdot today: http://pressesc.com/01181755074_plants_recognise_siblings - or see the study directly. This is interesting material. Maybe it could be added to the article sometime? —msikma (user, talk) 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can go to Kin selection for sure. Shyamal 09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this on my plum tree?

1 2 3 4 5 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quietmartialartist 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your plum tree is sick, very sick, you have more than one fungal and bacterial organism living on the trunk and they have been there for a few years. Its hard to tell which one caused the canker like growth and corresponding dead tissue. If the tree does not produce fruit, I would remove it and replant another plum some were else on the property. (remember you will have best fruit set with at least two different tress for cross pollination) You have a primary infection that has caused tissue death and a number of secondary infections. Fungicides might help but its not likely since they are going the have a difficult time getting into the trunk. Hardyplants 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I did not answer your question, the stuff on your tree looks to be the trees defensive mechinsim against invaders. The Jelly or tar like secretions are produced by the tree to trap invaders and keep they away from the living tissues. Does your tree have a graft point, if so this is a likely location for the start of the infection- which could be a fungus or a bacteria. See this http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/bacterialcanker.htm 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try some fungicides and if that doesn't work I'll get rid of the tree. Quietmartialartist 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Collage...

I like the taxobox collage idea. I really do. But all the pictures are flowering plants, except the squashed fern at the top. A similar discussion took place with the animal collage. Yes, the majority of plants are angiosperms, but doesn't mean we have to exclude everything else. If we could get a moss, a pine tree, and a gingko on there, that would be more indicative of plant diversity. Werothegreat 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. Most animals are beetles, and most atoms are hydrogen, but the diversity's the interesting part.--Curtis Clark 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a green alga, a bryophyte (moss), a fern, a gymnosperm, and a flowering plant (or two or three). Likewise, there should be images of whole plants, not just close-ups of their leaves and sexual appendages. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahahah!! That "sexual appendage" bit made my morning. Circeus 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Finnish article?

According to the Wikiproject Echo box at the top of this page, the Finnish (Suomi) article fi:Kasvi (Plants) is a featured article. However, there is no star on that article or any indication I can find that it has been a featured article. Can anyone sort this situation out? --EncycloPetey 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that it is just called a "Recommended article" over there, presumably without stars or other decoration indicating its special "status". --Van helsing 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at fi:Keskustelu:Kasvi. I think that template doesn't belong. (Too bad, it's an improvement over "featured articles" that are half as short as our non-featured one.) Circeus 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Green algae

a simple mathematical problem. green algae are said to have 3800 species, but clicking on green algae, one gets to an article saying it has 1000-2000 species. the same occurs in some other cases. have i not read an explanation of this, is there one missing, or are some articles at fault? thanks, felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.236.89 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The green algae article is incorrect; there are at least 3800 species of green algae known. Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes "green algae" or even Chlorophyta has changed drastically in recent decades, so one must be careful when looking at numbers of species. The Chlorophyta article claims 8000 species in the group, and cites the same source I used for the figure of 3800 for the Plant#Diversity table. The table on this page is a recent and careful assessment of numbers from authoritative sources, with citations as given. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Best Plants for Science Fair

I've changed to plants...what plants should I use?

☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Algae isn't a plant

It's not a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct; green algae is a group of plants, not just one plant. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, green algae is also called Chlorophta which is a phylum of Protists (p. 530 Modern Biology Albert Towle et al. ISBN:0-03-017744-8)Etineskid (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Textbooks are consistently wrong on this. I recently taught an intro biology class and was astonished at the errors presented when discussion algae and plant taxonomy (maintaining that they're all called phyla instead of divisions was one of the most annoying, in fact). Rkitko ^(talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Code finally caught up with the last one—"Phylum" and "Division" are both now acceptable, I believe since the Tokyo Code.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture

The composite image looks quite good, but the Sarraceniaceae (2 photos) and Asteraceae (3) are overrepresented - the surplus pictures would be better replaced by images of other taxa to represent a broader taxonomic / structural range. Also, on closer examination some of the images are of poor quality and aren't very clear. --Graminophile (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants improvement drive

A couple editors agreed that they'd be available to focus on this article for an improvement drive. I thought we'd start off by cobbling together a to-do list. One of the most difficult things is being comprehensive without being overwhelming. Items that seem to be missing or needed:

1. In-line references.
2. History. Haeckel isn't mentioned in text, just captions and taxobox. Previous treatments before "Plantae"?
3. Summary style for the major divisions Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seed plants.
4. Prose needed for "Factors affecting growth" lists.
5. Proper lead.
6. Summary style discussion of plant anatomy and plant morphology? Or will those topics be thoroughly discussed when taking care of #3? No, there are general features of organization, cellular structure, and physiology that are common to all (or almost all) plants.--EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the fun begin! --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying to cover the major divisions (taxonomic sense), it might be better to cover Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seeds plants, since each of these has its own article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's pretty much what I had in mind. That organization will cover discussion of all the divisions, which is what is important. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Original image

File:Diversity of plants image.png

Proposed replacement

To address the concerns of the editor's message above our improvement drive here, I tried to create a better image for the taxobox. Comments, concerns? Most divisions are represented and I included images from the two largest families. Black border is easily changed. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary to have two pteridophyt images, and I'd by far favor an image offruit on plant than those raspberries, which look out of place. Maybe replace the black background images with natural setting ones too? Overall, it's a good improvement, though. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent feedback. I agree about the two Pteridophyta images and the fruit. Got any ideas for replacements? I personally like the black background images, but I have no problem with changing them. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

re: artificial BG, these look just as out of place as the raspberry image, because all the other were made in obviously natural settings. As for fruit images, there's Image:Apricots.jpg, Image:Plums.jpg, or Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, from FP. Circeus (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of ideas come to mind, but here are three technical points. (1) The new image has much better contrast and resolution in the images, so that it is possible to tell what you're looking at. This is an improvement. (2) The current image is about 100K, which will load rather quickly. The new image is 2.5M, which will not be good for slower connections. (3) All the yellows and reds are in the lower half of the image, which unabalances the colors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :-) Regarding image size, I wanted to use the lossless png format, which punches up the file size. But the thumbnails that will be on the page only register a difference of 41KB of the current photo to the 209KB of the proposed image. Not much of a difference. I'll see what I can do about the colors. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Diversity of plants image version 2.png

Version 2

File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png

Version 3

Any better? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk about timing lol. I personally think it's a great image. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The file size is still 2.5M though. Try moving the bottom row to the second row position (and shifting everything else down). I think that would balance the reds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give the row shifting a try tomorrow. I think you may be right about that; I'll just have to play around with it a bit more. I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the file size. It won't slow down the loading of this page much more than the current image does for slower connections. And clicking on the image to get to the image page reveals a 535KB thumbnail of the image. The only way a user would get the full 2.5M image is if they click through (twice) to the full res image. Not sure many will do that and I'm not sure we'd want to sacrifice any of the image's quality. I'll report back in tomorrow with the shifted row version to see how that looks. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There we go - version three has the rows shifted. Better? --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Five kingdom classification

Isn't it outdated? I don't see it followed elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor much elsewhere. So why is it used here? Narayanese (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A reference is a reference. Many of the organisms called algae left the plant kingdom in the 1970s, and they haven't been back.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was more the bit about "are now included" I didn't like, but oh well, perhaps the difference between writing "Kingdom Plantae" and "protists" is enough to hint that the latter isn't a formal classification. Narayanese (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not see it used much in current scientific publications on taxonomy, but it is still predominant in textbooks at all levels. The issue must be addressed, or users will complain that our coverage is lacking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, the sentence manages to call cyanobacteria protists. Narayanese (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Im Frühling wird die Biosphäre (Pflanzen) von Süden nach Norden grün

• Wie nennt sich das in der Fachsprache?
• Ist das nicht eines der wichtigsten Entwicklungsmerkmale des Klimas und des Klimawandels?
• Was sind die chemischen Prozesse in diesem Zusammenhang (Photosyntese?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fungi section

It's really wordy, plus it goes off-topic and discusses things that have nothing to do with plants. 2-3 rows should be enough to describe how non-plant they are. Narayanese (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to delete this section - the article previously mentions the historical error that placed fungi in the Plantae. Therefore no description of fungi is merited here. Le chien manquee (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no "descripotion" of fungi. There is an explanation of why fungi are no longer included among the plants, which is an important explanation to include, since for centuries they were lumped together. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Only the first and last sentence describe why. And what's that thing about fungi only being saprophytes and parasites? That ignores the large number of fungi that are symbionts of predators or photosynthetic organisms and thus do not obtain nutrients by themselves. Narayanese (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary article, and the fugi section summarizes differences between two kingdoms. It is not about the minutiae or explaining every exception and case that exists. A summary...summarizes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fungi doesn't belong in this section. It is in a totally different kingdom. --Drew2794 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To me the current text is roughly the right level of detail in terms of saying not just that they are a totally different kingdom, but why, and then pointing to other articles rather than going into detail here. Kingdon (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Plant needs

i think there should be an article on here that describes plant needs and groth in more depth --Olkni599 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several such articles started, including Plant physiology, Plant nutrition, and Meristem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Withering

Plants wither not only when they lose water through evaporation but also when they are surrounded by an aqueous solution of common salt, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, sugar or other substance, if the solution is of higher osmotic pressure, whereas they do not wilt if the osmotic pressure is lower.(pdf)

Please include the above information in the article. Anwar (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As EncycloPetey pointed out, "too specific for the article about the entire kingdom; see turgor pressure", where he transferred your addition. The statement is not even true of all plants; some have mechanisms to deal with hyperosmotic environments, and others have mechanisms to prevent wilting even with loss of turgor.

In addition, the understanding of turgor has increased since 1901. It's unclear why you would want to use that quote and reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction

There seems to be precious little here on plant reproduction. Evercat (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The main articles on that topic are reproduction and alternation of generations. It is unlikely that this general article on plants will ever have more than a summary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename/Move Page?

The fundamental problem with this page is this: confusion concerning the definition of the terms "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae".

These terms have been used so many different ways over the years, that "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" have little useful technical meaning. Here's some history.

1) At one time we used to classify all organisms as being either plants or animals (The two kingdom system). Plants included Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi, Algae, Bryophytes, vascular plants, slime moulds, and perhaps a few other groups.

2) When it was recognized that Prokaryotes were a fundamentally distinct group, the original concept of "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" was discarded. In the new three kingdom system, the Bacteria and Archaea were transferred to the new Kingdom Monera. This considerably narrowed our concept of plants.

3) It was eventually recognised that the three kingdom system was also flawed. A five kingdom system was introduced, with a new Kingdom Fungi, and a Kingdom Protista (or Proctoctista). In this system, the concept of "plants" and "Kingdom Plantae" was further narrowed, and limited to include only bryophytes and vascular plants. All eukaryotic algae were transferred to the Kingdom Protista. The Protista however was always an ill-defined assemblage of organisms - consisting of a grab-bag of organisms that didn't fit conveniently into the other kingdoms.

4) The flaws in this system became especially apparent with the advent of modern, detailed molecular phylogenetic studies. Baldauf et al. (2003: Science 300: 1703-1706) recognised that the eukaryotes consisted of a series of different clades (e.g., Opisthokonts, Heterokonts, etc). These clades have little correspondence to our old system of five Kingdoms. It is forcing a major rethink of our kingdom system - and the dust hasn't settled. One of Baldauf et al.'s clades was labelled "Plants". It comprised the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. Confused??

5) This assemblage of organisms has now been renamed Archaeplastida. The major subdivisions of the Archaeplastida are the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, and Viridiplantae. The Viridiplantae comprise the Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. The term Embryophytes can be used to collectively and unambiguously to refer to the bryophyte and vascular plant collective.

So my suggestion - rename this page as "Viridiplantae" (or perhaps move it to Viridiplantae). The content best fits with this concept. Introduce a new "Plant" page that explains this history. It can serve as a source for disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.194.170 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In passing, reading the Archaeplastida article, it sounds like this term has not yet achieved universal acceptance (there are rivals, for instance). Though a biologist in a past life, I'm no taxonomist, so can't judge what the consensus view is in plant biology. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that it's perhaps too early to make a definitive change (some people don't seem to have accepted the 5 kingdom view yet!). Furthermore, I'd be very reluctant to move the article about plants to an article with a title I'd not heard of 5 minutes ago. If this were a less well-known phylogenetic group, then I'd probably not bat an eyelid, but this is probably the most significant group of organisms on the planet. Taking a different (and possibly irrelevant) tack, can we draw any lessons from what happens over at the animal article? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Oops. Got myself a bit confused there. "Viridiplantae" is what I should have said. Although that too also appears to have at least one pretender to the throne (Metaphytes?). Anyway, I guess I'd still caution against moving the article of such a significant (and commonly used) group to what might be a temporarily in-favour name. But as I'm not a taxonomist, I'm probably just railing against the new. Could you identify a good review of this which specifically overviews the new groups? I can't determine whether Baldauf's (2003) scheme is in common use. Sorry if it's just me being ignorant. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A further note - the concept of plant, as used by people on the street, fits best with Embryophyte (bryophytes and vascular plants). This concept excludes all green algae. So - the concept of plant used in this article doesn't correspond to everyday use.

Does it exclude all green algae? I think people might refer to seaweeds as plants (even though they're amongst the most mixed-up "groups" of autotrophs!). Anyway, I take the point. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a Plant (botanical) article which might provide a convenient means for clarifying this mess.

You have made a number of unsupported assertions. Most everday usage I have seen would include algae within the definition of "plant", which is why this article addresses that issue. Your creating a new article is called a "content fork" which is undesirable on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I support deletion of Plant (botanical) and don't know why the AfD was closed before potential commenters had the chance to find it. All this material is present elsewhere on wikipedia and scattering this kind of thing over a bunch of different pages makes it harder, not easier, to figure out what to say about each topic. I also support making Viridiplantae a redirect again, at least until there can be more discussion. Kingdon (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on both points. I supported merging into plant, but there are so few references on plant (botanical) that merging would require a re-write and referencing anyway. We could take it to a deletion review or renominate it. Viridiplantae also lacks any references and reproduces material that is included here. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The content of the fork article is actually about the various high-level classification systems, and so would belong in an article about that issue, not in the article about the Plant Kingdom specifically. The fork article deals with issue related to the history and philosophy of classification, not with plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of it belongs, not in Plant, but in Monera, Three domain system, and the like. And guess what? It is already in those articles. With better references, better facts (for example, Archaeplastida as glaucophytes, red algae, and green algae is a controversial hypothesis with at least one recent paper providing evidence to the contrary), and (mostly) better writing. Kingdon (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could all you guys please get a couple of high-school kids and ordinary non-experts together and have them look at this plant page and then tell you what a plant is? Algae are plants. (Apparently the most important and common ones !?!) Fungi aren't plants but are the second most important thing on the plant page. But then readers get lost in taxonomy all the way down to "Life processes". What "other plants" (algae?) the author distinguishes Vascular plants from remains unclear, particularly since this follows a section mentioning Mangroves which seem to fall firmly into the vascular plant category. That those are the "green growing" things most readers were looking for in the first place isn't obvious. Distinguishing "Viridiplantae" from "Embryophytes" is surely very important, but should either go at the bottom in a separate section or on a separate page from a page simply called "plant" (And not Plant kingdom!) I'd vote for keeping Plant (botanical) and moving all but the most basic taxonomy/botany there. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above stated comment, but do not agree with creating a "content fork" or placing the taxonomic information on the bottom. There should be a balance between the 'technical' terms and generic information. There are many topics, i.e. turgur pressure, that could be mentioned and treated with some level of detail with further detail in the link. The topic is plant and what defines a plant. The article does have room for improvement, particularly to flow. There are sections which deviate too far from the topic at hand and have the feel of rambling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.63.205 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Respiration

The link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't offer any obvious "plant" choices. A basic page on Respiration (plant) seems to be missing. Cellular respiration is too detailed to offer any identifiable information to anyone who doesn't already know what he/she is looking for coming from this page. A step in between is needed. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. The issue with Cellular respiration is not that it is too detailed, but that it isn't about the exchange of gases with plant roots at all. At least for now, I've piped the link to Gas diffusion in soil, which should probably do OK until that article is expanded enough to need splitting (I suspect Root respiration would be the right name for an article, if there is to be a new one). Kingdon (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Root respiration would create yet another page about plants that, though probably more appropriate for experts, would leave non-experts in the dust. Respiration is generally associated with air, and thus leaves are what people would be looking at, rather than roots, which are in the ground. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's air in the soil. How else do you think that soil insects breathe?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he article wouldn't be for people looking for what bugs breathe but mostly for ordinary people (non-experts) who are trying to figure out what happens with the O2 and CO2 in plants. Hence Respiration (plant) They are thinking air-breathe-(respiration is already pushing it, but a doable jump) I keep being flabbergasted that the botanical sections in Wikipedia are more difficult to find something in than in Particle Physics. The goal with naming, writing and organizing articles in an encyclopedia should be to make information accessible to it's readers, not finding some clever scheme, logical explanation or structure that keeps it usable only to people deeply immersed in the field and willing to follow endless strings of links through species lists and highly specialized pages. If you'd like a practical example check through the RefDesk archives and see how many people have failed to find things in the articles. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Factors Affecting Growth

Plants take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. The level of carbon dioxide can greatly affect the growth rate, at least of some plants.Friendlyinnovators (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Composite images in taxoboxes (just like the main page for Plant)

I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.

I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, (Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.

Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.

I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.

I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...

Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.

Before and after colour correction of taxobox image for Vascular_plant

One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. --Snek01 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Plant" vs. "Viridiplantae"

User:EncycloPetey has twice redirected Viridiplantae into "plant". I disagree with this approach, but of course I defer to the community consensus. However, I feel it should be discussed before being redirected a third time. --Arcadian (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed here, and there, rather than continuing with reversions. This article is a difficult mish-mash of the accurate and really unscientific and of popular culture in plants. What to do? I think there's room for a good article specifically on the history of how Viridiplantae is used.

By the way, why is the taxobox image here including a picture of Volvox as its green algae? It should be Chara or something. I think I agreed to this image, but never thought about this aspect. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the name of this article. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), "Scientific names are to be used as page titles". "Plant" should be either be moved to "Plantae", or it should lose its infobox. --Arcadian (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, extremely common names are used, and there are few words as common as this in English, and there is an attempt at creating a purely botanical article at Plant (botanical), which should be the one called Plantae. Let's stick to the topic of Viridiplantae, please. --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues are directly related. If the article "plant" is about the word "plant" and the various ways in which it is used in English, then then we can't redirect "Viridiplantae" into "plant". (We could arguably redirect it into "Archaeplastida". I would still disagree with that choice, but at least it would be compliant with policies.) --Arcadian (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about this article and whether or not Viridiplantae should be a redirect to this or its own article. Now you want to discuss changing the title of this article. No problem. Go for it, and I'll just revert Viridiplantae to a redirect to Plant. You decide what you want. --KP Botany (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I am reading between the lines correctly, I think we are in largely agreement over the "what", though we may disagree over the "why". For the record, I support a "plant" article focused upon English usage and language history, and articles at "Archaeplastida" and "Viridiplantae" for the scientific information. I agree with you that an actual move or split is not directly part the current discussion. However, EncycloPetey has twice characterized the Viridiplantae content as a fork of the plant page, using that as the justification for redirecting Viridiplantae to plant. That's why I feel that a determination of the subject of the plant article is relevant to the current discussion, so that we can figure out if Wikipedia:Content forking applies. --Arcadian (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That would make "Plant" a Wiktionary entry, and not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about words—their history and usage. And yes, the "Viridiplantae" article as you have proposed it would be a content fork, since we curently treat the circumsciption of the green plants at the Plant article. Please resolve the issue before forking the article again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By your reasoning, dozens more articles would need to be merged into the "plant" article. You do not appear to have generated support for your case yet. Please resolve the issue before merging the article for a fourth time. --Arcadian (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first question that needs to be answered here is do the terms "plant" and "Viridiplantae" have essentially the same meaning? Hesperian 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Algae tree

Viridiplantae has the same meaning as "green plant", and is equal to Green algae+Embryophyta (land plants) or Chlorophyta+Streptophyta. (There are tiny exceptions, but they are beyond the scope of this argument.) However, the term "plant" does not have a reliable modern scientific definition. --Arcadian (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)--Arcadian (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Plant=Archaeplastida is pretty common. That's why having an "extended disambiguation page" similar to the current Plant (botanical) at Plant would be a good idea, it also means this article can finally divest itself of the two fungi and algae sections. Btw, that tree isn't very good Arcadian; Chromista and Cabozoa aren't really the most accepted groups. Narayanese (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about Chromista and Cabozoa (I added the illustration to illustrate Viridiplantae, not the other groups). I also agree Plant=Archaeplastida is common (though the term "Archaeplastida" may be on the way out: see PMID 18612431.) --Arcadian (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The data in that paper is a bit weak. Interesting nonetheless. Narayanese (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the only paper to question Archaeplastida (PMID 17194223 covers this topic with reference to various studies). The lesson I draw from this is that we don't really know yet, and we should take all of these with a grain of salt. Kingdon (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So back to the issue: Is this article about Viridiplantae or Archaeplastida, or is it about something else? Is the common understanding of "plant" so vague that this page should be a disambiguation or index page, or is it possible to say something about plants in the common, ambiguous meaning and make it an article? I note that there is a section about theories about light in the respective article, so perhaps it is okay for this article to treat older ideas about the circumscription of plants. But all these questions need to be addressed, IMO, before the issue at hand can be satisfactorily resolved.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The major point from Curtis' post needs addressed, imo, and that is that the word "plant" has a meaning in the vernacular that is long-standing and major, and needs addressed in an article. The scope of that article is another issue that should be addressed. I don't like to see major topics in the vernacular turned into dabs. It's annoying as a user of the encyclopedia to be taken to a dab when you could easily poll a couple of thousand people and come up with the same general idea of what a plant page should be, but specialists get in there and decide to dab it to all sorts of nonsense. A plant is a plant, and that has not been well defined ever, as it is a common term not a scientific term. The word, however, is used by the scientific community.

What is this article about, though? Is it, as Curtis asks, "about Viridiplantae or Archaeplastida, or is it about something else?" While I think the article strives to be about Viridiplantae, it diverges into Archaeplastida and belong in its introductory section on Algae and Fungi. I would like that part moved down and pared down if the article is about Viridplantae. However, if the article is about plant in the vernacular, we can move away from the technical definitions and into the common language. Are the red algae considered plants in the common language? It used to mean anything that photosynthesized. As far-fetched as it now seems, the fungi were considered plants by some folks, and they were studied by botanists.

Can we legitimately have a general article about plant? I think so, and I think we should as a service to readers. My opinion is we should define the scope of this article and use the Viridiplantae as a technical page for the taxonomic and evolutionary issues of green plants (whatever they are). --KP Botany (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about this as an outline?

1. Intro
2. Historical views
3. Green plants and their relatives (archaeplastida and viridiplantae could be main articles off this)
4. Algae (main articles as needed)
5. Fungi (main article Fungi)
6. Bacteria [these were considered plants by most botanists prior to the 1970s--main articles as appropriate]
7. Plants and humans

Thus the article would serve as a jumping-off place for the major groups once called plants, and would tell the average reader what they wanted to know either here or through a single click.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

With an introductory section and appropriate links to evolution and taxonomy in the Green plants and their relatives section, and photosynthesis. I think this could be an excellent outline for this article. --KP Botany (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, dabing Plant is a silly idea. It is very hard to write an article that has to be so broad as to kep the whole thing an introduction that funnels people into different places for the depth they needed. I also agree that making an article on a scientifically defined group of "plants" isn't a content fork. I would like to see a section on "plants" and ecology retained, particularly if we have a Plants and humans section. Earthdirt (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image updates

File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png

Current (left) and proposed (right)

Hi, folks. I don't mean to derail the above conversation, but KP Botany asked me to do a little work on the taxobox image for this article. Curtis joined in and it was suggested I replace the Volvox image with the image from the taxobox in Desmidiales. (Conversation here). I also replaced the fern image. I'm still not entirely happy with the orchid image and simple browsing for images on the Orchidaceae at commons is maddening unless you know which species or genus you want to look for. There's always room for improvement elsewhere. Any suggestions? I believe someone (EncycloPetey?) once mentioned that it may be too long. If there are similar concerns, I can work on it while I have the files open and dusted off. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I miss the fiddleneck, but I love the new fern image. Yes, it would be nice to have an obscenely gorgeous image of an orchid, imo. I like it, Rkitko. I don't think it has to be perfect, but attractive helps. --KP Botany (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a great composite (though so was the original), though I agree with what KP said about the orchid. Personally I'm not a fan or roses, especially not orange ones...maybe you could replace it with an Arabidopsis :) (Not that Arabidopsis is a real plant any more...) Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I included the rose because it's easily recognized by most people and the color just came from one of the better photos I found. It would be nice to get an Arabidopsis photo in there, too. I was also thinking some kind of fossil taxa would be nice. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably biased (as one who lives in a house full of Cymbidiums), but seems to be like Cymbidium often illustrates the bauplan of an orchid pretty well, although I don't see a lot of good photos at commons. One which is good is File:Cymbidium08_black.jpg Kingdon (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a decent image. Certainly better than the current washed-out one. I'll pop it in and see how it looks. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unwilling to vote for Cymbidium as the orchid picture, because they seem so common, orchid wise. However, that is actually a good reason for having a cymbidium orchid in the image, just like having the hybrid rose rather than a wild rose. I think familiar plants enhance an image of this nature, and, really, I would rather have a Cymbidium than just about any other orchid in the image, except, of course, a spectacular profile of a Darwin orchid. I used to live near acres of orchid greenhouses and loved to go visit them in the rain. I like the one Kingdon picked, although I'd almost rather a pink/violet one. Except that the image is really nice. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the goal of the image to circumscribe Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, or something else? --Arcadian (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the outcome of the above discussion. As it is, and if I understand all this, it currently represents Viridiplantae, but it could also represent Archaeplastida (the omission of images of the other taxa excluded from Viridiplantae but included in Archaeplastida need not alter what this composite image displays). --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a great change! Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I agree that the sections could be merged.Etineskid (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Info

I found this info here: Plants Enjoy Women's Voices More than Men's? Should we include it in here, for example, in the Factors determining growth section? --Siliconov (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest at least tracking down the original scientific source for this before adding anything to the main article, that is the scientific paper in which the work is described. The web article listed makes no reference to any reliable source in which this might have been published. More generally, the description of the research in this web article sounds rather bogus, and may be heavily distorted from the original work. For instance, why should plants respond to the voices of a recently evolved species like humans? I would expect the exact nature and hypotheses of any peer-reviewed publication to expand on this, and provide crucial details needed here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ok then. I just liked the info, but forgot about sources and such things. Thanks for opening my eyes :). --Siliconov (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry if I came across as a big, wet blanket above. One of the problems with WP articles is ensuring that they don't accumulate too much information, and that they stay focussed on material that's most pertinent to the subject at hand. We don't know what readers want from a particular article, so sticking with the most relevant information is probably best. Aside from my suspicion that the original work has been mangled by a journalist, my concern is that this particular information is (a) rather specific, and (b) somewhat random for our main article on plants as a major biological group. But I may have sounded like some kill-joy bureaucrat (unless ... that's what I've become!). Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing about plants growing more when talked to is a result of increased carbon dioxide anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this really does not belong in this article, even if found to be true. Abductive, do you have any study that backs up atmospheric CO2 as limiting factor in plant growth in genral and more specificaly one that covers this area of inquiry? Hardyplants (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any college biology textbook says that CO₂ is the limiting nutrient for most plants. The talking to your plants science fair experiment source might be harder to come by if you want it to be reliable. I'm super busy IRL so I'll have to get back to you in a few days. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The relationship between plant performance and atmospheric CO₂ is well-established, both from experiments with living plants (e.g. De Souza et al. [2008]. Elevated CO2 increases photosynthesis, biomass and productivity, and modifies gene expression in sugarcane. Plant Cell and Environment 31, 1116-1127) and by examining fossil material (e.g. Franks, P.J. & Beerling, D.J. [2009]. Maximum leaf conductance driven by CO2 effects on stomatal size and density over geologic time. PNAS 106, 10343-10347). In fact, it's a feedback that's often included in climate models (e.g. Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A. and Totterdell, I. J. [2000]. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408, 184-187).

That said, I don't know that CO₂ is (universally) the most limiting nutrient for land plants, and would be interested to see a source for that. Water is often much more limiting to plant growth (think: desert), although the two often go hand-in-hand since plants lose water through transpiration when getting CO₂ from the atmosphere. And don't forget that mineral nutrients like nitrates and phosphates are routinely added by farmers to their crops. If CO₂ really was the most limiting nutrient, one might not expect to see much of a response from carbon-stressed plants by the addition of the latter.

Returning to the original story that started this discussion, I still think that the male/female "results" are probably the product of an over-eager PR department. But it would still be useful to see the formal publication that inspired the story. Whether they merit inclusion in the article can be decided then. Adding some SYNTH to the article on how talking to your plants helps them should probably be avoided. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have an article on growth requirements of plants, for placement of any potential useful information on this topic? I think that Plumbago has struck very close to the crux of this issue, in that CO2, by its self is not much of a limiting factor in growth for most plants (which are able to absorb enough from the atmosphere). But CO2, coppeled along with other conditions like water availability, temperature and any shortages of other necessary nutrients play a more pronounced role in limiting plant growth, the effect of CO2 is more synergistic than direct. Any ideas on where info covering conditions that limit or enhance plant growth should go? My person experience of conditions that limit growth would include too little or to much water, light, space, shortages of nutrients like Nitrogen, Iron ect or toxicity from other chemicals and elements and oxygen shortage, I am willing to start such a page. Hardyplants (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Water is not a nutrient, so CO₂ is the limiting nutrient. There are a handful of places on Earth so short of Nitrogen that plants have has to adapt; think pitcher plants. Otherwise nitrogen is not limiting. Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The concept of limiting nutrients is different for every plant and its environment. CO₂ may be the limiting factor for some aquatic plants, while phosphorus or nitrogen or perhaps even a micronutrient may be the main limiting nutrient. Since it's so variable, I'm not sure how instructive it might be to include in this article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading up on the subject? Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I searched the primary literature and also reached back into my edition of Campbell's Biology textbook. The only discussion there was of limiting nutrients in marine environments, where it notes that nitrogen and phosphorus are often the most limiting. It also gives an example where iron, a micronutrient, is the limiting nutrient. My other botany-specific textbooks are at home so I don't have the chance to thumb through those at the moment. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we already do have an article on limiting factor, which is in need of expansion. Perhaps referenced information can go there. If it becomes too unwieldy, consider limiting factors in plants or something similar. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In a real sense, water is treated as a nutrient by plants. It's a small molecule that is dissociated (cf. oxygen evolution) and utilised (cf. in carbohydrates) in metabolism. While it is a widely available liquid upon which terrestrial life is founded, and while its use in metabolism is a minor one relative to transpiration, it's not difficult to see the parallel with traditional nutrients like nitrate and phosphate.

Anyway, this section began with a off-the-wall suggestion that plant growth responded differently to male and female voices. This suggestion, which has now deviated into a discussion of CO₂ and H₂O, has yet to be supported by either the original press statement or the scientific paper that it was based upon. Let's not forget that. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What are plants made of, aside from water

I couldnt find any mention of the chemical composition of plants in the article. And how does this composition vary among the plant kingdom? I have heard it said that plants are mainly sugars (lignocellulose) and animals are mainly proteins (except maybe fat people, and not counting bones). --Smokefoot (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a subject better handled at the article Phytochemistry, which is unfortunately rather short. The answer will depend on whether you are talking about the chemical compounds or the constituent elements. The relative amount of constituent elements differs between plants and vertebrate mostly on the basis of the addiitonal minerals needed to construct a skeleton. If you chose not to count bones, that also has a huge impact on your answer. You'd need to specify which parts of each organism you want to ignore. Additionally, the chemical composition of woody plants changes with age, since wood contains chemicals not found in non-woody tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More explicit link to Plant sexuality

Hi there, I came here looking for what I finally discovered in the article Plant sexuality. I searched for "sex" and "gender" but had no luck.

I appreciate that this article does actually link to Plant Sexuality, but I would suggest a more explicit and prominent reference, possibly using the keywords I mentioned.

Thanks. 205.228.104.142 (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if "Plant sexuality" is the best term for it. "Sexual reproduction in plants" gets 4,360,000 regular Google hits, 675 Google Book hits, and 367 Google scholar hits. "Plant sexuality" gets 28,300 regular Google hits, 560 Google Book hits, and 266 Google scholar hits. Add in "sexual reproduction of plants", "sexual reproduction in flowering plants", "sexual reproduction of flowering plants", and "plant sexual reproduction", each of which has hundreds of Google Books and Scholar hits, and I'm convinced that the original naming of this article was idiosyncratic. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sexuality" and "Sexual reproduction" are different areas of study. One focus on mechanisms of reproduction and has to do mostly with anatomy, while the other focus on morphology and gender expression. Hardyplants (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove it, from the secondary scientific literature? And why don't we have an article on the mechanisms? It is by far a more common topic if Google is to be believed. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove it" prove what, that plant scientists study plant sexuality, your own Google search indicates that they do. "why don't we have an article on the mechanisms" - no one has made one, the info is in a number of different article though including Flower and Sexual reproduction. If you think we need a more detailed and specific one, I would help with it over the winter months. Hardyplants (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I say that the usage of the term "plant sexuality" predominates in the older literature, and is not used in a way that is distinguishable from "plant sexual reproduction". Are there professors who specialize in "plant sexuality"? There are only three(!) Google scholar hits with the term in the title of the article; this one talks about pollen tubes and megasporocytes, and one of the other two is actually titled "The evolution of plant sexual diversity". [3]

"plant sexual reproduction" has 22 Google Scholar title hits

"sexual reproduction in plants" has 11 Scholar title hits

"sexual reproduction in flowering plants" has 19

"sexual reproduction of flowering plants" has 3

So when you say "plant scientists study plant sexuality" I say what they are studying is the entirety of plant sexual reproduction, including the anatomy, and don't distinguish it the way you do. Then, since the term "sexual reproduction" has about two orders of magnitude more usage than "sexuality", the article should be moved away from the sexuality term under WP:COMMONNAMES. If the article is focusing too much on either "mechanisms of reproduction and with anatomy" and not enough on "morphology and gender expression" or vice versa, it needs to be edited to achieve a balance under WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think we need an article that covers how plant produce new plants by means of sex ( I do too), then go ahead a start one. The plant sexuality article focus on one area of plants sexual reproduction, which was vitally important in plant classification and is important in plant identification and plant breeding and plant evolution. Here is an interesting overview of the history of this topic [4] that might be useful to intergrate in the plant sexualty articel. Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to write an article making this out-dated 18th century distinction. Your source is talking historically; can't you see that? Abductive (reasoning) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually an active and growing area of research, now that genetic mechanisms of compatibility have been identified in recent decades. The distinction is not outdated; it's more relevant than ever. The only difference is in the additional modern terminology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a single source that says "the field of plant sexuality is different from the field of sexual reproduction in plants"?

1. In this book, The Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-century science no distinction is made (opens on the page on Linnaeus).
2. Different book, same story.
3. Ditto.
4. different book, same text as the book above.
5. [5]
6. and [6] can't see inside these books, but they are talking historically.
7. Two sentences apart in this book, no distinction made.
8. Another.
9. Another book, talking about cytoplasmic male sterility.
10. Here, a modern writer is sharply critical of Linnaeus's "gendering of plant sexuality" and supports my argument that this is an 18th century term.
11. Another.
12. Another.
13. Another, laps over onto page 4.
14. Another.
15. Another.
16. Another, talking, as many of the books I have linked, about Cameraius. As usual, it makes no distinction.
17. No distinction made in The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants By Jane S. Smith.

That's it for Google Books evidence.

I also point out that regular Google searching only has 513 initial results for "Plant sexuality" -wikipedia", 193 for "sexuality in plants" -wikipedia 219 "sexuality of plants" -wikipedia, but 691 for "sexual reproduction in plants" -wikipedia, 526 for "sexual reproduction in flowering plants" -wikipedia, 204 for "sexual reproduction of plants" -wikipedia, 99 for "sexual reproduction of flowering plants" -wikipedia, 414 for "plant sexual reproduction" -wikipedia and 149 for "plants sexual reproduction" -wikipedia. That's 925 for "sexuality" and 2093 for "sexual reproduction". Abductive (reasoning) 02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite a single source that says "bubonic plague is different from woodpeckers"? Some differences are so obvious to workers in the field that no explicit statement of difference is ever made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I find many books that use the terms interchangeably, and you respond with a comment that says "I know better than you, because I am a worker in the field." If this is such a different field, why are there no professors whose webpages make this distinction? If you are a worker in the field, name the professors who are experts in it so that I may look at their webpages and articles and see for myself. I can be convinced, but I suspect this is, at best, rather like the Division (botany)/Phylum "difference" that you plant guys hang onto. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please identify a single specific 20th or 21st century work that uses the terms interchangably. You've made the claim that the two terms are used interchangably, but have offered no supporting citations. This is not at all like the Phylum / Division distinction, which is a historical artifice of different names for exactly the same concept. Fosket's Plant Growth and Development (a major textbook) does not consider the two to be interchangeable (see pp. 25-26); there is first a section discussing differences in reproduction between plants and animals, then a section discussing difference in sexuality between the two groups. Longton and Schuster's summary article on "Reproductive Biology" of bryophytes (published 1983 in vol.1 of the New Manual of Bryology) compares reproduction in groups with different sexualities (monoicous and dioicous). They point out that the difference in sexuality leads to differences in reproduction. Such an argument is meaningless if the terms are synonymous and interchangeable. A telling quotation: "The control of sexuality in bryophytes differs from that in flowering plants as sex is expressed in the gametophyte rather than the sporophyte generation." Sexuality is explicitly tied to sexual expression, and not to reproductive biology in general, for which the article focusses on other issues, such as spore productivity, sporophyte production, and asexual reproduction.

All of the above books are recent and use the terms in the same context. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, theyt aren't. Most are straight reprintings of 19th century books or are very early 20th century books. I checked the original publication date, not the latest one, and the death date of the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First one; Londa Schiebinger very much alive. Second one; Ted Dadswell, seems to be publishing books now. Third and fourth ones, Schiebinger again. Fourth one; printed 1967, Fifth one printed 1985. Sixth one; Roger Lawrence Williams, born 1923. The last one on Luther Burbank was printed in 2009. What are you talking about? Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First what? I've looked at several of the identically labelled links above, and can't match this "first" with any possible candidate for "first" above. I've looked at many of the links above, and the random ones I picked are either (as I said) early works or are quoting people from early works. Please find and clerarly identify for me a quote from a modern science author. Note: Londa Schiebinger is a historian, so she is not doing any science at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am doing them in order, from the top down. I'll number them for you. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Plant sexuality refers to the arrangement and/or separation (physical or temporal) of "male" and "female" parts and/or stages, the interaction between the male and female stages, and associated sexual maturation. Plant reproduction refers to life cycle, meiosis/syngamy, propogation, and the dispersal of propagules or offspring. The two concepts are not at all the same for plants any more than they are for animals. The are countless examples of plant species that share the same method of reproduction, but whose sexuality is very distinctly different. The differences in sexuality can sometimes distinguish between two species in the same genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you make the definition of "method of reproduction" sufficiently broad; gametes meet, then all eukaryotic reproduction is the same. The plant sexuality article is saying that only the angiosperms matter. It cannot stand as the sole treatment in an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The embryo article emphasizes human embryos, almost to the exclusion of the embryos or plants and other animals. The muscle article discusses primarily human muscle, with little or no mention of invertebrates. So, how is this article different from all the other works in progress on Wikipedia? There is astart of an article on sexuality in plant gametophytes at monoicous, so the article you mention is not the only one around. It may end up splitting into a separate article on sexuality in flowering plants at some point, but right now there isn't enough information on the other divisions (as you've noted) to make that split viable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument to expand the article (and the others), not split. Splitting is only appropriate when an article grows very long or unwieldy. This article puts itself out there as the article on plants making baby plants via recombination, if we judge by the wikilinks and by the {{Botany}} template. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I still await your professors, dead or alive, who distinguished plant sexuality from plant sexual reproduction. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And I still await a single quote from you claiming that they are they same. The burden of proof is upon you. The null hypothesis when dealing with two different terms is to assume they are different, not to assume they are the same. You have linked to many works that use both phrases, but none of them claim identity of the terms. I have provided two clear references distinguishing them, which you have not addressed. And, as I say, you haven't shown that there is any problem except in your own undersatnding. No author above have claimed they are the same. Appearing near each other in the same work is not evidence of synonymy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is not on me. My argument is many-fold; first, that this distinction is damaging to the encyclopedia, since it is used as the main article on plant reproduction when it does not cover most of the information needed. (Confirming this is the fact that many articles and books talk about them close together, without feeling the need to say they are different. Q: Why is that? A: Because it isn't important.) Second, the continuum of gender is part of what makes plants interesting, but the article concentrates on terminology in the flowering plants. It doesn't even say why plants might engage in sex-switching, or why some species might be monoecious and some dioecious. (My fault, it does touch on the subject later.) No link to recombination exists in the article, no link to polyploidy, diploidy, or haploidy. The article incorrectly states that "As taller and more complex plants evolved, alternation of generations evolved..." after it talked about " liverworts and mosses", leading the reader to believe that liverworts and mosses don't have alternation of generations when in fact they are examplars of it. I suspect this is because of article WP:OWNership. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is the article must be remade to cover the whole story, or moved to Flowering plant sexuality or Sexuality in angiosperms or just made into Glossary of plant sexuality, because right now, once the article is a sham. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would argue that human sexuality is a synonymous field of study as human reproduction? Keeping in mind the first question, what terms would you expect to find covered in detail when talking about plant reproduction verses sexuality? Hardyplants (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the point I am making. I am not arguing to merge an article on Sexual reproduction in plants into Plant sexuality or vice versa, but that the plant sexuality article is linked from Sexual reproduction#Plants as the "main article." Therefore people are going there for a fuller treatment. Since it is the only article available, it must be remade into the main article, starting with the name change. As for the human sexuality =/= human reproduction argument, my reading of the books above shows that Wikipedia could support an article on human interpretations of plant sexuality, from a historical/sociological perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I run across issues with flower sexuality every week, it is a common inclusion in botanical works on flora and in plant descriptions. If you want to compose an article on "plant sexuality, from a historical/sociological perspective" there might be enough information for an interesting article...As I asked about, if you want to start a page on sexual reproduction of plants, then I would help. It makes no sense to kill or butcher an article on topic "x" because we do not have an article on topic "m". After giving the issue a few days of thought, we should have an article on "Plant reproduction" that summarizes both sexual and nonsexual reproduction in plants, since much of this information is already scattered in other articles, see sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction, flower, seed, pollen, pollination and a number of others. Hardyplants (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we create the new article, you know that the sexuality article will be bypassed by a lot of readers forevermore? Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

how we know that the green plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.155.2 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Biosafety of plant....

• http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+plant+biosafety&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.219.241 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro Number Discrepancy

So there are 350,000 species of plants and there are 287,655 species of plants. Which is it? --Leodmacleod (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this confusion stayed here for a year! I just edited it to match the numbers put out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which is an authoritative source for such counts. Now there is but one set of numbers in the first paragraph. But the numbers do not agree with the table. I do not know what to do about that. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the numbers. I agree this page is a mess. Your numbers do not seem to include the green algae or the red algae, which probably should be added too. This article could use some serious work, as the quality is rather spotty right now. (You are right, the table should be fixed--and the lycophytes should be removed from the pteridophytes). I plan to work on this page someday if no one beats me to it. One big problem with this page is that it does not commit to a definition of plant. I would recommend either land plants (embryophytes) which is the common non-scientific conception of plant, or the whole clade including red algae, glaucophytes and green algae. The Kenrick and Crane phylogeny uses a lot of obscure terms (e.g. subphyla) and is rather dated. We have a better picture now than we did 14 years ago.Michaplot (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We have been defining this page as synonymous with "Viridiplantae". If we use the truly "common" definition of plants, we'd have to make this page a polyphyletic mess. The common definition (even in science museums) includes all algae, even the kelps. I'm not sure what you mean by separating the lycophytes from the pteridophytes. They're separate in the table, and the problem with the intro is that it dumps a lot of detailed data at the article's outset instead of summarizing the article as it should do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that viridiplantae is as good a circumscription of "plant" as any (But then the article should not have the sentence, "Plants are distinguished from green algae..."). The Tree of Life project concurs with this definition, but Jepson UCMP site does not. My problem with the table is that it has Pteridophyta and Lycophyta, (which construction usually refers to a Linnaean rank), but they are both listed as pterdiophytes. The use of pteridophyte to include both lycophytes and ferns is regrettable. Certainly it persists, but has largely disappeared in many places. I think it is a mistake to perpetuate the usage on WP. In fact, the reference cited for this usage does not use or support that use of pteridophyte. Rather it notes that this a historical usage that defines a paraphyletic assemblage. As such it should be abandoned, especially as the ferns s.l. are commonly now referred to as pteridophytes (or pterophytes) to distinguish them from lycophytes. I think we should rewrite the pteridophyte page to reflect current and historical usage--I will post a request for consensus on the talk page for that article.

I agree that this article needs some reorganization. It also needs rewriting for accuracy. What, for example, is a "seed embryo"? The term "primitive" should never refer to a taxon. The pollen tube does not penetrate the seed coat. Plants should not be defined as members of the plant kingdom as that is at best unhelpful and probably tautological, and plus this is how the Britannica article begins. Etc.Michaplot (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. What is "Jepson UCMP"? Do you mean the Jepson Manual or the Jepson Herbarium? The Jepson Manual covers "higher plants" in its surrent edition, but there are plans to add bryophytes (at least) in a later edition. The UCMP website is for the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and is a completely separate museum and website. Its plant exhibits are very dated at this point, and I say that as the author of most of them. The choice of "Plantae" was made according to the obsolete five kingdom concept, and were I to write those pages todat I wouldn't do that. The phylogeny of green plants was still a relatively new area of study at the time I wrote those pages.

Why is "pteridophyte" regrettable? Do you advocate the elimination of the term "bryophyte"? "green algae"? "algae"? "fish"? "marine mammal"? These terms are not clades, but that does not mean the terms are not useful for describing groups with shared ecological and life history traits. Not every subject of biology is restricted to or uniform throughout a single clade. As for revising the pteridophyte page, I'd be strongly against it. The article should be about the topic it currently covers, not about the name chosen for the article. This is a point being discussed already at WP:PLANTS. Articles should be about a biological topic, not about an English word. The latter is the purview of dictionaries, not an encyclopedia. We use disambiguation links to address overlap of words; we should not use entire articles to do this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yes I meant UCMP (don't know why I put Jepson, except maybe that they are next to each other) and yes the systematics is rather out of date, which is a shame as it is a frequently visited website. As for the names of paraphyletic groups, I do advocate their elimination, for the most part, but the fact is they exist in the literature and in current usage, and WP is not a place to promote one's personal preferences. (I think the debate discussed by Farris (1979 Systematic Zoology 28:483-519) is over and phylogenetic nomenclature has prevailed, but old usages persist. I concede that some paraphyletic groups are inevitable in scientific nomenclature, but these should still be defined by monophyletic groups within the paraphyletic group, and these terms should be distinguished in some way from monophyletic groups.)

Your point about names vs. topics is unclear to me. The pteridophyte page is about what is meant by the name pteridophyte. Names determine how we conceive of the biology. It seems to me (and, in my opinion, rather regrettably) that the term pteridophyte is still used in the literature (especially in the floristics literature) to mean vascular plants except seed plants. My sense though is that this is becoming less common, and I think it is possible to find cases of other uses of that term, or at least references to its obsolescence. What I am advocating for the pteridophyte page is that the term be defined as historical and potentially problematic (as in the Smith et al. paper), not merely and blandly as "not a monophyletic group". At least the potential confusion with pteridophyta should be mentioned. I am not advocating phylogenetic activism, but, as a tertiary source, WP should be exhaustive and defining pteridophyte as it is currently defined seems to me to be taking a position.Michaplot (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the pteridophyte article is not about what is meant by the word "pteridophyte", nor should it be. If you do not understand the topic/label distinction, then I suggest you read Use–mention distinction. An article about a biological group should never be determined by its name, rather, the name of the article should follow from its content. "Pteridophyte" is the best label for the topic discussed on that article, so that is used as its name. There is a separate article about Pteridophyta, because that is a different topic, and "Fern" is the current name for that article. The pteridophyte article should not be converted into a mish-mash discussing both topics. These are two separate topics, so they should be two separate articles. Wikipedia should indeed conver topics exhaustively, but not all on a single page. The place to exhaustively define words is Wiktionary; Wikipedia deals in topics, not words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your perspective (and avidity) on this topic of names. Still, and pardon me if I am being obdurate, it seems to me your plaint applies not at all to what I have been saying. I am well aware of the use/mention issue (and fallacy), and, since many WP articles (and real world employments as well) are mixtures of use and mention, it does not strike me as a clear or germane distinction to make—rather we should consider each instance, case by case. And I am not advocating making the article about the word “pteridophyte”.

I fully understand that WP articles should be about items or entities organized primarily by what they are, not by how they are named.

I feel that what you are arguing, EncycloPetey, is a philosophical position and a rather specific and tendentious one. There are other positions. While I am not interested in debating nominalism vs. realism or the pedantry of the use/mention concern right now, I think it patently untenable to claim, “An article about a biological group should never be determined by its name, rather, the name of the article should follow from its content”. Terms are human constructs. The group pteridophyte would not exist without its name, and thus must be defined. (The Wikipedia is not a Dictionary page says, “Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions…. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.”

Since no “pteridophyte” concept exists in nature, the only claim for existence one can make is that biologists have erected a concept “pteridophyte”. WP cannot avoid the fact that science is based on nomenclature and that sometimes nomenclature changes, and, most importantly, that the concept named in the name, may be artificial. And, even if it seems to be natural (e.g. we believe we have perceived an actual pattern in nature and not imposed an expedient one), we cannot be sure. Thus for biological groups it is often necessary to discuss the complexities of how they have been conceived and named. This seems to me well within the purview of WP.

Which brings me to the point that I am not sure I think pterdiophyte is the best label for the topic, now that you have pointed out to me it is the primary page for this assemblage. Seedless vascular plant is perhaps more common in textbooks these days. Britannica uses lower vascular plants and notes that these were formerly called pteridophytes (but is co-written by Gifford, and thus is probably out of date). Judd, et al. (Plant Systematics) uses the term “free-sporing tracheophytes” (in quotes to indicate they are paraphyletic) and mentions that they are also called ferns and fern allies or pteridophytes. Campbell never mentions the word pteridophyte, but does use the word pterophyte (to mean the ferns). Seedless vascular plant is the term for seedless vascular plants in Campbell.

It seems to me that encyclopedia authors must make a decision about what article to create and what to name it based on optimizing the concept and name that most reflects current use (what people are likely looking for when they consult the encyclopedia) and the concept and name that is best on scientific grounds (in cases like this, where current use, even among scientists, may lag behind advances in science—which is why traditional encyclopedias are written by experts with broad knowledge). In this case, it is a difficult problem. I think by whatever name we call the seedless vascular plants, we should have a discussion in the article about the fact that the concept and the names are problematic but with historical significance, that alternative names exist as well as similar names, easily confused (e.g. pteridophyte/pterdiophyta). This would add value to the article within the spirit of WP. And it would most certainly not remove the focus from the plants to the names.

I was simultaneously horrified and amused to recall having the Bryophyte page begin with a mention not a use! But then there seems to be a good tradition of this on WP for defunct taxa (see Bromeliales, Glumiflorae, Gynandrae, Helobiae, Juncales, Liliiflorae, e.g.) Perhaps this is not warranted, as one difference is that bryophyte and pteridophyte are still used, which reflects an ongoing revolution and concomitant schism in modern biology, and that is a topic for WP. Still, the names are names—they are symbols or maps, not natural entities or territories, and WP must wallow in names to exalt the concepts.Michaplot (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this digression into philosophy, nor the appeal to Campbell, by which I assume you mean the famous work on bryophyte and pteridophyte morphology that was published 100 years ago. Victorian/Edwardian terminology differs vastly from the modern in many cases and cannot be used as a guide to the present. This is especially true in this case, since some of the fossil pteridophytes are now known not to have been vascular plants after all. So, they cannot be accurately called "seedless vascular plants" as they were'nt all vascular. I'm also also confused by your claim that Campbell never mentions that word pteridophyte, since I find it throughout the work quite easily, as on p7 (3rd ed.): "Pteridophytes show the closest analogy with the similar processes among the lower Spermatophytes..." In the latter part of that sentence, Selaginella and Azolla are included among the heterosporous pteridophytes, manking the scope of that term clear. I do not find the phrase "seedless vascular plant" in the work at all.

Oh, and if the wording of the Bryophyte page horrifies you, you have only yourself to blame, since the wording was put there by yourself: [7] --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You assume wrong. Campbell means Neil Campbell (Biology, Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece, Steven A. Wasserman, Robert B. Jackson), as I assumed would be clear from the context. As for "Horrified", this was a word I used by way of being arch, as I assumed would be clear from the context. Your response seems a bit strident, and ingenuous as far as nuance goes. We may have a bit of a communication problem here. In any case, the actual issues remain, which include, among others, the burning question of whether pteridophyte is the most appropriate name for seedless vascular plants, and how the page should be edited to better explain the concept.Michaplot (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What context? You said "Campbell" with no title, date, or other context. The other works you appelaed to were the Britannica and Judd's Plant Systematics. I had no means of guessing that you meant the general biology textbook. I still don't see why you think there is a "burning" issue, especially when the second volume of Flora of North America carries the title "Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms". "Pteridophytes" is still an extremely common word in the literature for the "ferns and fern allies". Which part of the general page on all of plant biology needs to explain this concept? And why do you insist that "seedless vascular plants" is synonymous with "pteridophyte" (it isn't; there are non-vascular fossil pteridophytes). --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Further reading ...

I was rather hoping to find an fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of plant groups listed, along the lines of Grzimek's for animals. Is there something like that? — kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no such book extant. Most "comprehensive" books on plants either limit themselves to a single group (mosses, ferns, conifers, etc) or treat a floristic region (and cover only vascular plants). There has also been so much change in high-level plant classification recently that any such book older than 20 years would be very outdated -- even the "classes" and orders of flowering plants have undergone enormous change in circumscription. The best I can suggest are (1) van den Hoek's Algae, which will cover the green algae and charophytes, (2) Schofield's Introction to Bryology, which is dated but does a good job of surveying the major groups, (3) Robbin C. Morran's A Natural History of Ferns, which skimps on the "fern allies", but is up-to-date on the phylogenetics even if it does treat the subject generally, (4) Raven, Evert, & Eichhorn's Biology of Plants, which will fill in a decent survey of extant pteridophytes and gymnosperms, (5) Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants for the major extinct groups. There is no general text I'd recommend for current angiosperm diversity, although there are a number of textbooks and lab books that do a fair job of treating the major families (e.g. Cronquist, Zomlefer, or Heywood), but you have to bear in mind that the families and relationships have changed a bit since they were published. Cronquist in particular is very out of step with our current understanding of angiosperm classification. Dahlgren's works do a decent morpholocial and chemical survey of the monocots. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.84.3 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) hey guys plants r cool like dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.222.130 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fungi are not plants

I wrote in the last edit comment: these long stretches of text in the beginning of the article are NOT about plants, pls motivate why it should be here. Each Wikipedia article should be limited to the subject that is identified by its title. There can also be something about how these things relate to other phenomena. Botany relates historically to fungi, plants ... In the systematic sense, plants do not relate to fungi at all. Ecologically there are interesting relations, for example mycorhiza. A reader surfing to the article Plant is expected to want information about plants, not about unrelated organisms, especially not in the beginning of the article. --Ettrig (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people think that fungi are plants, so a note to the reader that they are covered in a separate article would be appropriate. But not an extended amount of material. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here: Talk:Plant/Archive 1#Fungi section. I agree with Kingdon's assessment that the current text is the perfect level of detail for this article. It could use some references, but it should remain in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It shows that this has been discussed before and that the keepers were a minority, then as now. --Ettrig (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. They may not be Plantae, but fungi arguably still are plants. I agree that the focus of the article needs to follow the biological definition of 'plant', but the popular definition has its place too. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, Linnaeus classified all fungi in kingdom vegetabilia. I suppose some people might still consider them "plants". Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Viridiplantae into this article

Merging Viridiplantae into this article is being discussed at Talk:Viridiplantae#Merge with Plant?. The discussion is also concerned with how this article should be organized. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent nomenclature

I am engaged in re-writing some parts of this article, primarily to deal with the seriously inconsistent mixing of traditional and modern classifications/names. Thus in parts of this version of the article, names like "Chlorophyta", "Streptophyta" and "Charophyta" were used in their traditional paraphyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for all green algae, i.e. the clade Viridiplantae minus the clade Embryophyta), whereas in other parts they were used in their modern monophyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for one of the two clades making up the Viridiplantae). A particular problem, as I saw it, was that the text often used the traditional paraphyletic sense for a term but its wikilink led to an article which used the modern sense.

In the early stages of re-writing, there will be some under-referencing, which I intend to correct, but any assistance will be very welcome! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One problem (or two!) is what is mean by the "divisions" Chlorophyta and Charophyta in the taxobox. No references are given, and it's no use following the wikilinks because these explain alternative definitions. I suspect that these are meant to be Chlorophyta = all green algae except Charophyta and Embryophyta; Charophyta = stoneworts (+ some other streptophyte algae?) + land plants. This is quite inconsistent with Green_algae#Classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chlorophyta should probably mean the clade, exclusive of the streptophytes. Charophyta should mean the streptophytes excluding the embryophytes; this would make a paraphyletic group, but the higher classification of the "charophytes" doesn't have a consistent and widely-accepted set of names, or even agreement on the clades yet. I can't respond to what you mean by "stoneworts", since that would exclude most charophytes as I use that term (e.g. desmids). --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice that you have used the word "should"; I'm in the same position and this is the source of some of my difficulty. You and I have discussed this before, but now there really needs to be some resolution, otherwise the Plant article (with or without later splits as per the discussion at Talk:Viridiplantae) is in serious difficulties. Like you, I believe I understand how the terms should be used. For example, the cladogram below shows the Lewis & McCourt (2004) classification. This is a bit out of date according to Becker & Marin (2009), but not seriously so, and it's the latest Linnaean classification I can find (Becker & Marin, like most recent work, is strictly cladistic). Then the purple bits to the right are how I think Chlorophyta and Charophyta should be used.

Viridiplantae  Division Chlorophyta  about 4 classes of algae Division Charophyta  about 5 classes of algae Subdivision Streptophytina  Class Charophyceae (stoneworts) Class Embryophyceae (land plants)

Division Chlorophyta Division Charophyta clade Embryophyta (10 extant Divisions)

The problem is that this must be WP:SYNTH (or even WP:OR), because the traditional uses of Chlorophyta and Charophyta are all defined in the literature before the Lewis & McCourt cladogram, so there is no reference I can find (and I have looked hard) which supports the relationship I have drawn above. Is there one?

So can I use it in the article (or the spun-off article as per your suggestion at Talk:Viridiplantae)? If not, we simply can't define the way in Chlorophyta and Charophyta are used in the Plant taxobox, which is utterly unsatisfactory.

(Another approach seems to be to use "Streptophyta" as a clade name for Lewis & McCourt's Charophyta and "Charophyta" for their Streptophytina. Further "Charophyta" has been used for the stoneworts alone – or so it says in the Charophyta article, though it isn't referenced. Sigh...) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution as progress

I've never liked this bit from Evolutionary history of plants, which is currently repeated in this article:

The evolution of plants has resulted in increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While the groups which appeared earlier continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they evolved, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures.

If "each new grade of organisation" has become more successful than its predecessors, why are there more species of moss than of any of the more "advanced" groups except flowering plants? If species diversity is a measure of evolutionary success (and it seems as good a measure to me as any other) then the "bryophyte" grade as a whole is much more successful than any other land plants except flowering plants. This is not what you would deduce from the quote above. I'll leave this note here for a few days, because the paragraph has been around for a while, but then unless there are reasoned objections, I'm going to change it, both here and at Evolutionary history of plants. The notion of "evolution as inevitable progress" is far too seductive, and needs to be tackled at every opportunity. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That last sentence did strike me. I think moss would reject that you have to be tall to be a success in this universe, regardless the empirically grounded comparisons promised by that stuff about "most measures". I agree with you, is what I'm saying, and I will make the deletion for now.-Tesseract²(talk) 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten about this and my intention to edit the paragraph. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List in lede

The lede currently includes the list: "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[tree]]s, [[Flowering plant|flowers]], [[herb]]s, [[Shrub|bushes]], [[grass]]es, [[vine]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]].". This mixes classification by external forms and scientific classification. For instance, "Flowering plant" includes most, but not all, trees, as well as herbs, grasses, and vines. I suggest the sentence be changed to something like "[[flowering plants]], [[gymnosperm]]s (conifers and cycads), [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]]." -- Donald Albury 13:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the list in the lead is not quite right, but I don't think that you can write "familiar organisms .. such as gymnosperms". "Gymnosperm" isn't a familiar term to most readers (and glossing it as "conifers and cycads" is not really a great improvement; cycads are not familiar to readers outside the tropics). What about some variant of "... such as [[flowering plant]]s of all kinds – [[tree]]s, [[herbaceous plant|herb]]s, [[Shrub|bushes]], [[vine]]s and [[grass]]es, as well as [[moss]]es and [[green algae]]." The list does not have to be inclusive, just to explain to the general reader what the article is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead (talk • contribs)

I think most readers will understand that everything from flowering plants to mosses are plants, it's the bit about green algae being in the plant kingdom that is less understood. I'm not committed to any particular taxa being in the list. I do want to avoid using "flowering plant" to mean garden flowers and wild flowers, as opposed to trees, bushes, and grass. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We agree; so what wording do you suggest? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Shelby is ooops suuuuubs 14 I agree that we can leave out mention of the cycads, gingko, horsetails, stoneworts, liverworts, etc. Some people, however, may remember when fungi and bacteria were included in the Plant Kingdom, so maybe it needs to be mentioned that they are no longer included. "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[flowering plant]]s, [[conifer]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]], but do not include [[fungi]] and [[bacteria]]." Unfortunately, "conifer" redirects to Pinophyta, which I suspect is familiar to very few people. Also, are brown and red algaes included as "plants" in this article? I'm no clear which sensu the article adopts. Kelp may be familiar enough to most people to be worth mentioning. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brown and red algae belong to other groups in modern classifications systems, and are not included within the WP definition of "Plant". However, red algae might end up back in the definition of "plant" because of their close relationship, and because of some rumblings in the systematics community to consider the idea. Brown algae won't ever return unless either (1) fungi and animals are included, or (2) monophyly as a criterion is tossed out the window. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be wary of "ever"; there are supported phylogenies in which the Chromalveolata and Archaeplastida form a clade (see the second diagram at Eukaryotes#Expanded Chromalveolata). The truth seems to be that at present the deep phylogeny of the eukaryotes is very uncertain. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case, we maybe should add that Kelp (or maybe, "most seaweed") is not in the Plant Kingdom. -- Donald Albury 14:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems fine to me: "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[flowering plant]]s, [[conifer]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]], but do not include [[seaweed]]s like [[kelp]], nor [[fungi]] and [[bacteria]]." I'm going to be WP:BOLD and put this in the article; it can still be changed, but it's better than what is there now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Should it be "..., nor fungi and bacteria" (as I've put) or "..., nor fungi or bacteria"? (The "nor" is there to stop "seaweeds like kelp, fungi and bacteria" being read as if fungi and bacteria were seaweeds".) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "nor ... or ..." but that's just what sounds better to me. the rest is fine. -- Donald Albury 00:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Plants are highly distributed in tropical areas than the other areas in the planet Earth. Angiosperms are mainly distributed and highly developed in tropical areas. Gymnosperms (mainly conifers ) are found in cool areas like Siberia and Canada. The most diversified ecosystems are found in tropical rainforest areas. Therefore plants' diversification affects plants' distribution.

Kiruthikane (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request rejected. It's unclear where you want this information inserted and whether you have references for the assertions. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Diseases, pests, and propagation

As a gardener (of flowers, vegetables, and fruit) I find Wikipedia invaluable. But the format currently adopted does not usually refer to diseases, pests, and methods of propagation (and what to do about the first two). Of course one can get something on the internet about all this. But for commonly grown plants a standard format which included these as separate sections would be very useful. --Markd999 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is why you won't find information that describes how to propagate or what to do if a disease or pest is found. Some articles do include descriptions of pests and diseases that typically afflict certain plants, but we must use reliable sources that contain this information as our references. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Understanding horticulture

Horticulture is a term that evokes images of plants, gardening, and people working in the horticultural industries.[5] For the public, and policy makers, the term is not completely understood nor is its impact on human activities been fully appreciated.[5] Horticulture impacts widely on human activities, more than its popular understanding as merely "gardening" would indicate. It needs to be recognised as a matrix of inter-relating areas that overlap, with complex inter-relationships. A wider and more accurate definition will communicate effectively the importance of plants, their cultivation and their use for sustainable human existence. The popular "gardening activity" sense fails to convey the important role that horticulture plays in the lives of individuals, communities and human societies as a whole. Describing its impact on the physiological, psychological and social activities of people is key to expanding our understanding; however "the cultivation of a garden, orchard, or nursery" and "the cultivation of flowers, fruits, vegetables, or ornamental plants" as well as "the science and art of cultivating such plants" [6] will suffice to sketch the outline of a short description. Relf (1992)[7] expanded the traditional understanding of horticulture beyond “garden” cultivation. Tukey (1962)[8] gave an overview of those involved in the field of horticulture, in stating that there are those who are concerned with the science or biological side, those concerned with the business side and finally those who are concerned with the home or art side, who enjoy plants simply for the satisfaction they get from them. Primarily it is an art, but it is intimately connected with science at every point.[9] Relf highlighted the fact that, in limiting the definition of horticulture severely limits an understanding of what horticulture means in terms of human well-being.[10] Relf provided a comprehensive definition of horticulture as; the art and science of plants resulting in the development of minds and emotions of individuals, the enrichment and health of communities, and the integration of the “garden” in the breadth of modern civilisation.[7] In addition, Halfacre and Barden (1979),[11] Janick and Goldman (2003).[12] further extended the scope of horticulture when they agreed that the origins of horticulture are intimately associated with the history of humanity and that horticulture encompasses all life and bridges the gap between science, art and human beings. This broader vision of horticulture embraces plants, including the multitude of products and activities (oxygen, food, medicine, clothing, shelter, celebration or remembrance) essential for human survival; and people, whose active and passive involvement with “the garden” brings about benefits to them as individuals and to the communities and cultures they encompass (Relf, 2002;[7] Relf and Lohr, 2003 [13]).

It can be concluded that horticulture happens when people are in intimate, intensive contact with plants. It is the interface between people and plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.40.112 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

My contribution no longer requires Microsoft Silverlight. T.M.Jones (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Right now that link isn't working for me at all - it's giving me an error about HTML. For right now I'm not going to change anything, hopefully it will work better for another editor... --ElHef (Meep?) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I get the error "HTML5 PivotViewer - Error loading CXML Collection - URL : http://www.herbarium2.lsu.edu/aca/C747.cxml - Status : 0 Details : Pivot Viewer cannot continue until this problem is resolved" from http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/aca/ which I presume is the link you are referring to, from your previous addition to Botany. Feel free to reactivate the request if the content becomes accessible. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request June 11, 2013

Requesting that this line: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.

be changed to this: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, carbon dioxide, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.

The concentration of carbon dioxide is vital for and directly related to plant growth; the greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the faster the growth until other factors such as plant type and other nutrients' availability limit it. Thus, carbon dioxide should be included in the list of environmental factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done This seems a good point, so I have made the edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Vegetation as Seen by Suomi NPP

Would one of the images located here or here be useful for illustrating worldwide plant distribution? Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Divisions - So seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?

So in the side menu to the right of the page, under the heading of "Land plants" it is listed this way:

Land plants (embryophytes)

Non-vascular land plants (bryophytes)

  •Marchantiophyta—liverworts
  •Anthocerotophyta—hornworts
  •Bryophyta—mosses
  •†Horneophytopsida

Vascular plants (tracheophytes)

  •†Rhyniophyta—rhyniophytes
  •†Zosterophyllophyta—zosterophylls
  •Lycopodiophyta—clubmosses
  •†Trimerophytophyta—trimerophytes
  •Pteridophyta—ferns and horsetails
  •†Progymnospermophyta

Seed plants (spermatophytes)

  •†Pteridospermatophyta—seed ferns
  •Pinophyta—conifers
  •Cycadophyta—cycads
  •Ginkgophyta—ginkgo
  •Gnetophyta—gnetae
  •Magnoliophyta—flowering plants

So... seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.145.148 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Layout problem

After the text,

  A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae, after Kenrick and Crane,[24] is as follows, with    
  modification to the Pteridophyta from Smith et al.

at the bottom of the article, the following table is showing me gibberish with lots of 'expansion depth exceeded' messages.

Seen In Chromium browser (v 31.0.1650.63 )

87.127.79.193 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I believe the problem was a recent edit to {{Clade}}, diff. I'm not an expert in template editing, but after the edit was undone, the tree on this page was restored with no "expansion depth exceeded" errors. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request- October 21, 2014

The text in section 1.3 of the article, "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.", is not cited.
Would somebody please cite it for me? The corrected text would be as follows: "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.".
Thank you. 99.120.10.54 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a citation. You can read more about that at the Fungus page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

innacurate opening

the opening sentance proclaims that "Plants are one of the two groups into which all living things are traditionally divided; the other is animals". This is totally wrong, there are infat several more divisions of life such as fungi, bacteria, ect. I'm amazed that such an important article could be written so poorly. And to be locked on top of it...97.91.179.137 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The key word is "traditionally". When I was in high school we were still being taught that all living things were either animals or plants, although the texts did admit that Euglena was a problem, as it was both self-mobile and had chlorophyll. -- Donald Albury 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clearer if "all living things are" is changed to "all living things were". Rkitko ^(talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't YOU change it? Hello! Cadiomals (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Don't change it. The plants and animals were the traditional groups, no matter what the current kingdoms are. Kitty 56 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed "are" to "have been". I hope this conveys that the two kingdom system has been superseded in scholarly discussion, while allowing for continued informal usage (as is mentioned later in that section). -- Donald Albury 12:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And since I edited over full protection, I'll revert myself if there is no consensus here to accept that edit. -- Donald Albury 12:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Major rewrite needed - 21 Apr 2015

This article is very confusing – a product of the many competing visions of what a plant is. Some editors, and the opening sentence, have tried to force the article to address one modern interpretation of the word plant (i.e., the Viridaeplantae), but the article's focus needs to emphasize that the meaning of the term plant has evolved with the biological classification system. It is also very clear that different people now use the word plant to mean quite different things. That needs to be clearly stated, and the current and historical diversity of usage needs to be emphasized in the article. In essence the heart of article should be about disambiguation... For more precise groupings readers should be referred to the separate articles on Archaeplastida, Viridiplantae, and Embryophyta. The current article is an incoherent mess! ––(signature added) 09:04, 21 April 2015 Lesfreck

I agree the article badly needs making more coherent. On the other hand, there is a field of study called "plant science" or "botany" whose objects of study are "plants", however defined. Countless "Floras" are in existence, listing the plants of different areas. "Plant" is a slightly fuzzy concept, yes, but still an important one. So I don't agree that the reader should primarily be directed to different articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

phylogenetic tree broken

Maybe it's just me, but this is how the phylogenetic tree in the #Evolution section looks like for me. Can someone who is able to do that, fix it please? :) Thx. --Thogo 09:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thogo: It looks fine to me. What browser are you using? There are some known issues with {{clade}} regarding how different browsers render the code. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I use Firefox (current revision). Hm, well, if it's ok for most people, then better leave it at that. ^^ --Thogo 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Def not OK. I see it broken just as Thogodoes, using both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. If the code fails for those browsers there needs to be a fix. Plantsurfer 20:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: This is really strange. It looks perfectly fine to me in Chrome, but get this -- I always browse Wikipedia with the browser zoomed out to 90%. Try it by pressing Ctrl and -. Zoomed out, it looks fine. Zoom back in to 100%, and it's broken. So odd... Anyway, I think the two edits made to {{clade}} in November 2014 were responsible for this broken display. I tested the template before those changes and it performed as expected. I've reverted the changes to the template back to the version before November 2014 and the cladogram here is fixed. Let me know if the problem persists for you in different browsers. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rkitko: Thanks, it works perfectly now, regardless of zoom level, in both Chrome and Internet Explorer. Plantsurfer 06:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Same here, thanks for the repair. :) --Thogo 16:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporal Range WRONG?!

It says "Early Cambrian" but it shows the Middle Cambrian what's sup with that and please someone please fix that. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

The photosynthesis equation is not balanced. Change "O2" to "6O2". 67.70.42.104 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

67.70.42.104 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Single/Multi cellular

A lot of people refer to certain types of algae as a plant and many scientists refer to single celled plants.

If that is the case, is the beginning sentence of plants being multi-cellular only an accurate one? Chris Fletcher (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Many people only regard Embryophytes as plants, but the article treats Viridiplantae as plants, and not all

members of that clade are multicellular. Plantsurfer 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"modular" unclear

I have a doctorate in biophysics, and thus I am not an "layperson", yet I have no idea what is meant by " Plants are also characterized by ... modular ... growth," even after reading the article it links to. The word "modular" does not appear in the linked article. I have "Plant Life" from Oxford Unifersity Press on my desk and it does not index "modular". Can some botanist please elucidate for the educated layperson, the meaning of "modular growth"? Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See, e.g., this explanation. A tree branch can be considered to be a "modular part" of the tree. It usually has buds capable of growing into new branches, so that the tree is made up of an indefinite number of modules. The contrast is with the determinate growth and shape of almost all animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It means that the structure is made of repeated similar units. Individual animals have segmentation, with a few repeated "modules", but these typically occur in a fixed location and in finite numbers, such as ribs in the human body, or body segments in a centipede. By contrast, buds, branches, and leaves repeat over and over throughout the structure of a single plant. So, instead of specific organs localized in a particular location as animals do, the organs in a plant repeat over and over as modules. Some colonial marine invertebrates approach this kind of pattern.

And because of indeterminate growth, plants can repeat these same modules over and over throughout their lives. When modular structure is combined with indeterminate growth, the result is (in mathematical language) a fractal pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Green plants" ?

The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the figure '300-315 thousand' accurate?

The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

beneficial characterstics of plants

Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph

I understand there's an issue around the paraphyly of the green algae. However, this article is about a (much) larger group, the plants as a whole, and the article's title is a common English name, so readers from school age upwards can reasonably expect at least the lead section to be simple and welcoming. I suggest, therefore, that we should not be launching into discussions of whether a particular group of plants happens to be paraphyletic - the job of the lead section is to give an overview of the plants as a whole, by summarizing the article as a whole. Taxonomic intricacies are not the priority there, specially in the first paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, provided the lead makes clear that although "plant" was an unproblematic term in the past, it has different definitions now. But the lead isn't the place to go into fine details of those definitions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in scope

Currently, the beginning of the article decisively declares that "Plant" is synonymous with Viridiplantae. This unnecessarily narrows the scope of the article to only one technical definition from one discipline (biology). Even from a biological standpoint, this is contradicted immediately when the actual ambiguity of the term is unfolded under Definition. If the scope of this article is supposed to be limited to Viridiplantae, why is there also a Viridiplantae article? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a little harsh, as the clade is only one element of the first paragraph, but in essence you have a point. The lead should summarize the body of the article, including any ambiguities it may have, and definition is certainly one of those. The lead might better say something along the lines of "As currently understood by botanists, the green plants are equivalent to the clade Viridiplantae, but ..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right about my sounding harsh. Sorry! I went ahead and changed the paragraph (before I saw your suggested wording, which may be better). Anyway, I suppose it was more an error in summary than the scope of the whole article. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As a more general point, should the opening sentence (now a standalone paragraph) emphasise the multicellularity of plants when many green algae are not multicellular? The most characteristic feature of plants is that they are photosynthetic autotrophs and as such form the basis of most terrestrial food chains. I can see why the lede starts with trying to describe the scope of the term, but perhaps multicellularity should be dealt with later. If photosynthesis can wait, so can multicellularity. Alternatively, the sentence should be made less absolute ("mainly/predominantly multicellular", "multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives") and/or more general (e.g. "a group of photsynthetic autotrophs including the multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives"). I note that the issue of multicellularity has been raised before, so won't make changes as I'm not sure of the history of why it retained in such a prominent position. I do see that defining a plant in a simple manner is actually an extremely difficult issue (harder than reptiles). Jts1882 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Added a couple of words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Plant nerves and feelings?

Hi!

The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)

However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.

I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016

I looked the citations, and the citations seems to be mostly unrelated. First citation refers to some history in 1800 where some researcher at that time made a hypothesis. It is a fact that there was a person who made a hypothesis, but that does not make the hypothesis true. Second citation says in abstract that plants "lack central nervous systems", exactly opposite of the claims in article. --Thv (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Immune system" section still (at 22 Mar 2017) contains a reference to "cells that behave like nerves", and suggests that bundle sheath cells perform a nerve-like signaling function. The reference for this content is a 2010 BBC news feature, reviewing the paper "Secret Life of Plants" (S. Karpinski, M. Szechynska-Hebda; Plant Signalling & Behaviour; Nov 2010; 5:11; pp1391-1394). This paper is - to be generous - extremely heterodox; it makes many claims not found in the mainstream of plant science. Passages such as "...plants are capable of processing information encrypted in light intensity and in its energy", "...plants are able to perform biological quantum computation and memorize light training in order to optimize their Darwinian fitness" and "It is suggested that plants could be intelligent organisms with much higher organism organization levels than it was thought before" give some indication of the flavour of this paper. Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation; an interesting but uncontentious paper (D. Peak et al;Evidence for complex collective dynamics and emergent distributed computation in plants; PNAS;Jan 2004; 101:4; pp918-922) is cited out of context, with the term "cellular automata" incorrectly referred to as "cellular automation", to support the thesis of plant computation capabilities. While this is not my domain (I'm a computer systems engineer), I believe this section should be reviewed by a domain expert, and updated to reflect a modern consensus view of this aspect of plant biology. --FredV (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think your comment "Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation" is an excellent assessment. Jargon for jargon's sake and no clarity. The section in the Plant article, as written, is worse than useless (it detracts from the whole article and Wikipedia in general). It says nothing clearly or accurately and has two separate parts: one about the paper you mention and another about the receptor and signalling molecules that could be an immune system. The text should briefly summarise what is in Plant_disease_resistance#Immune_system and aspects that don't make the grade there shouldn't be in this article. Jts1882 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Plant. 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/20080302040410/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html to http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226232147/http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf to http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626102452/http://images.algaebase.org/pdf/5628E58F0ecc431F0CsJm2B04CAD/49951.pdf to http://images.algaebase.org/pdf/5628E58F0ecc431F0CsJm2B04CAD/49951.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biochemj.org/bj/388/0151/bj3880151.htm

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) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)