Talk:Self-incompatibility in plants
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Third System?
There are more systems, but, what should that third system in Potentilla/Dasiphora fruticosa be? Is there any literature? Innes and Lenz call it gametophytic, so it's not a new system. (Innes, R.L. and L.M. Lenz. 1990. A Genetic Analysis of Self-Incompatibility and Double Flowers in Potentilla fruticosa L. Euphytica 51:241-248.) --134.93.62.50 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heterostyly
I believe heterostyly should have its own page. The terms heterostyly and self-incompatibility are not synonomous as far as I know.
[edit] Should We Split This Article?
Following a discussion in the Hebrew Wikipedia about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? You are also welcome to state your opinion about the one species-one article idea, although Wikipedia's policy was already stated here: [1]. Thank you in advance, Gidip 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
- If any one section gets too big, then it should be budded off, and the article should take on a summary format. I don't think it matters that it's evolved many times, as this is about a set of mechanisms that have the function. —Pengo 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)