Talk:Thigmonasty

Thigmotropic roots

Roots growing away from rocks is not a good example of thigmotropism, since it is not a simple situation and is in fact bedevilled by numerous factors. For example, moisture gradients may cause the roots of many species to search out rocks rather than avoid them. Rotational (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Acid growth vs. acid-induced stretching

Acid growth clearly mentions "acid-induced stretching" as an alternative name for the process, a name which is more descriptive and less misleading. "Growth" implies a one-way process which this is not, since at conclusion it is followed by shrinking of the cells.Rotational (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Stretching implies, as you describe, shrinking. The "resetting" of tentacles and the lobes of the Dionaea leaf involves the expansion of the cells on the opposite side; it's hypothesized that this is why the traps cannot respond to stimuli indefinitely. Acid growth is also the most common name for this phenomenon and is exceedingly more common than the others mentioned in the article. Additionally, "growth" by no means implies cellular division, so I fail to see how it's misleading. It's also reasonable to assume that readers will follow the link and read about acid growth. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Extract from Venus Flytrap: "Exactly what this stimulation does is still debated: cells in the outer layers of the lobes and midrib may rapidly secrete protons into their cell walls, loosening them and allowing them to swell rapidly by osmosis and acid growth; alternatively, cells in the inner layers of the lobes and midrib may rapidly secrete other ions, allowing water to follow by osmosis, and the cells to collapse. Both, either or neither of these mechanisms may play a role." The process certainly seems to be poorly understood and it is NOT reasonable to assume 'readers will follow the link'. Blandly labelling the process 'Acid growth' because others call it that, is not being encyclopaedic. Rotational (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The extract you pulled from that article comes from a 1988 article. More recent research has revealed that acid growth plays the major role, since traps perfused with a neutral buffer, thus preventing acidification, become unresponsive to stimuli. The S.E. Williams article I cited argues for a minor role of turgor; Williams is an authority on this phenomenon. I still don't understand why you think "acid growth" isn't encyclopedic. It's the title of the article, it's the most common name for the phenomenon (and thus the most easily recognized), it accurately described what's occurring, and is supported by evidence from references. Why are you trying to complicate things? It's already explained in the text that it is not cell division. --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Venus Flytrap extract is that old then it should be updated. I'm not suggesting that the title Acid growth be changed, even though that might not be a bad idea, but to use 'acid growth' when describing the process, IS misleading to the uninformed reader who does NOT know that it is an unsuitable name in common use. Rotational (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unsuitable about the name "acid growth" - it accurately described what's occurring. It is the irreversible elongation/expansion of individual cells. What else is that other than growth? All of the experts that I know in this field continue to call it "acid growth" and understand that it is growth of individual cells. It is not "stretching". Also, please review WP:BRD. You made an edit, I disagreed with your terminology, we're now discussing. The matter is disputed and thus what stands is the article's original language. I'm trying to explain to you why your term "stretching" is introducing unnecessary obfuscation and is an incorrect representation of the cited references and general scientific consensus on the matter. There doesn't seem to be a compromise here, since your language is incorrect, so I suggest you abandon your quest to introduce this word. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Biological growth implies cell division, and that is why the name is unsuitable. If so-called experts want to use the term, then that is their prerogative, however, bear in mind that science is riddled with unsuitable terms that are in common use. It is to be doubted that any poll took place on the approval of the name by the scientific community, so that your statement of "general scientific consensus on the matter" is purely speculative. The term "acid-induced stretching" is not mine, but comes from the article Acid growth. I would suggest that you stop turning this into a personal issue when all I want in the article is accuracy and clarity and most certainly not obfuscation. Rotational (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Biological growth does not imply cell division. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on that point. E.g., when bacteria divide, that is the growth of the population, but the individual cells still enlarge after division, which is also growth. Even our own article on cell growth described these two contexts as development and division. In the same way, acid growth is the growth of individual cells. I've read through the paper the acid growth article cites and couldn't find anything on alternative names for it, so I've removed the unreferenced information. Before reading our article, I've never heard it called anything but acid growth. I'm fine with your edit to this article. This is an accurate description of what's occurring. This is not personal; all I want is accuracy and precision. Your edits, except for the last on this article, introduced errors. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, biological growth does not imply cell division. A constant bit of folklore is that bamboo culms can "grow" as fast as a few cm/hr. Although there are intercalary meristems, the bulk of the elongation results from cell elongation rather than cell division. In my experience, the role of cell elongation in plants is under-appreciated by biologists who are more familiar with animals.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think our disagreement might be in the word 'imply'. I don't mean this in the mathematical logical sense that "if biological growth then cell division". Perhaps a less ambiguous way of putting it would be Biological growth suggests cell division, which is certainly the perception of the average person. It is this perception that should be dispelled and clinging to the phrase "acid growth" does not help, especially when more precision is conveyed by "acid-induced elongation" or "acid-induced stretching". Rotational (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. "Biological growth" does not suggest cell division. I'm not sure what the average person perceives on this and I have no way of gauging it. Regardless, I'm now fine with the way it's stated in the article. Just as long as we keep that word stretching out of it. I still can't find the genesis for that alternative name. If you could find a reference that uses it, I'd be interested to read it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• The sources call it acid growth (at least, all the ones I've seen pointed out). The only google scholar hits for "acid-induced stretching" are for "acetic acid induced stretching" which is a behavioral assay in rats and mice (as far as I could gather). Even if acid growth is a bad term (which I'm not convinced of), Wikipedia is not the place to fix it. Kingdon (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thigmonasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nyflora.org/newsletters/newsletter_44.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)