User talk:Curtis Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Template:Botanist

Hi Curtis, This is an exploratory contact to find out how involved you are or were in the development of this template. I have written a number of articles on botanists and taxonomists and would like to propose some changes to the structure of the template. If I'm knocking at the wrong door, please let me know. ciao Rotational (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't develop the template, but I've made some major contributions to it. I'd be interested to know what you propose.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - the main problem I have with the present form of the template, is its being bounded by the two lines. This means that it can't form part of the body of the text. Was there a reason for this structure? Rotational (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that many editors expect and even want it to be in a separate div, and certainly if it were converted to have inline properties, all the non-substed instances (which would be almost every use, since the instructions don't say to subst it) would break article layout.
But I do see your point. It would be trivial to make a separate inline template, but then there would likely be content forking as they were independently edited. A way around that would be to transclude the inline into the shell of the current one, but there are evidently limits on how deeply transcludes can be nested.
I'm copying this to Template talk:Botanist so others can weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crossosomataceae

Say, why did you make Crossosomataceae monogeneric? I can't find any authorities that do that, plus it kind of leaves Glossopetalon and Apacheria out in the cold... :-) Stan (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps that was the way it was treated in the old Munz manuals. Feel free to fix it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I remember that the legend in Southern California Botanists (their journal is Crossosoma) was that the Crossosomataceae is the only monotypic family native to California. I never bothered to check that out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trichomes of Cannabis

Hi Curtis. I don't know if you saw my reply on the trichomes page, but I nominated Trichomes of Cannabis for deletion for the reasons explained on the deletion proposal. --Graminophile (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it is a copyvio, I certainly support deletion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spore

Not is heterosoporous algae, or heterosporous liverworts, or heterosporous lycophytes, and no not in heterosporous ferns (please cite if you have contrary information), nor in a number of fossil heterosporous plants. It may be true that three megaspores degenerate in all seed plants, but there are some fossil taxa among seed plants I'm unsure of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not entirely apparent from these photos of Marsilea that the microspores are shed in tetrads, but it's pretty clear that the megaspores stand alone. These photos show pretty much the same. The Wikipedia article on Azolla mentions one megaspore, and these two articles seem to have supporting photos.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is one mature megaspore per sporangium in these ferns, but they are not formed by the process shown in the diagram. These heterosporous ferns begin with eight or sixteen spore mother cells, all of which undergoe meiosis. Then, 31 to 63 of the resulting cells dissolve before a spore wall is formed around the remaining spore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Campbell, Douglas Houghton (1918). The Structure and Development of Mosses and Ferns, 3rd, New York: The Macmillan Company, 417-439. These pages cover the Marsileaceae, and those immediately before these cover Azolla and Salvinia. I double-checked with the source directly, immediately before posting to you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So is it correct to say that each megasporocyte forms four products, that in one case three of them are discarded, and that in all other cases in a sporangium, all four are discarded?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. According to Bold, Alexopoulos, and Delevoryas Morphology of Plants and Fungi, the dissolving spores then mingle with the tapetal cells to form a nutritive plasmodium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So then the diagram does represent what happens in heterosporous ferns; it's just not the complete story. Also, it is inaccurate for some flowering plants. I'm going to change the caption to reflect that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflorescence

Upon reflection, I do realize the page seems to be scientifically accurate and prepared properly. As such, I have removed the {{expert}} tag that was on the page. However, I do think the page needs a bit of cleanup, with information presented in a form that is more similar to paragraphs rather than bullets. --SharkfaceT/C 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

it is regarded by the editors at WP:WikiProject Plants as being very accurate. Oh, really? Glad to hear it ;-) Aelwyn (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thanks for fixing the template onthe Kellogg article! Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)