Talk:Evolutionary history of plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Evolutionary history of plants has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

I have created this article as a stub. It greatly needs attention of a biologist or evolutionary expert. Nimur 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page Move

The page has been moved by User:Curtis Clark to a more descriptive title of the actual content. However, please feel free to contribute "such things as plant speciation and population genetics" - which are relevant to the topic as a whole. Nimur 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant Definition

Section renamed from "Suggestion" to a descriptive heading.

The article needs a more explicit definition of "plant": does it include cyanobacteria (as older classifications did), does it include green algae (which some current classifications do and some don't), or is it limited to land plants? Discussing the changing definitions of the term could be informative here as they are directly related to how things that have been called "plants" are related in an evolutionary sense, with modern classifications generally taking a much narrower (and explicitly phylogenetic) view. MrDarwin 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to include "proto-plants" such as protists, green algae, and cyanobacteria if they are relevant to the eventual development and speciation of modern plants. This will definitely assist in the historical perspective of cellular structures and biochemical processes. Furthermore, I do not think there are separate articles for the evolution of these proto-plant-like organisms. We can create a separate sub-article with discussion of this topic and any debates or concerns about classification. Nimur 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I created Evolutionary history of plants#Definition of Plant to discuss this section. Please contribute! Nimur 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

I think this article is organized wrong. It should go by major evolutioniary innovations, photosynthesis, chloroplast, multicellular organisms, the move to land from fresh water, bryophyte like plants and spores, vascular tissue, wood, leaves, seeds, flowers. It's hard to write like this, and it just doesn't work well with how the evolutionary history of plants is studied. Does anyone object? Is anyone particularly wedded to the existing structure? I could write a different article about the history of evolutionary innovations that lead to the colonization and dominance of terrestial ecosystems by plants, I suppose. KP Botany 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-organize in whatever way necessary. I will do my best to assist in an editorial role, but I am not an expert in the subject-matter, so I will defer to authoritative reputable sources in all cases. Nimur 05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that my original intention was to discuss the development of these plant features, rather than a chronological history of plants during each period. We should try to maintain the useful content while reorganizing to emphasize structural and biochemical developments. Nimur 06:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution. I hope this isn't too controversial! Verisimilus T 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What? You hope that removing all the content from the page won't be controversial? Removing all the content is usually considered vandalism, even if you post an "Under revision" template. I have put the content back. Your move was not only done without discussion but violated the GFDL for removing the edit histories of all contributors to the page. I have recommended merging Timeline of plant evolution here, since this is the established article, and no justification for changing the name of the article has been made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution. Verisimilus T 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The move is a violation of the GFDL. If you want to rename an article, please discuss the new name first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Verisimilus T 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful review papers...

I intend to eventually have some input into this page, but may be a while about it. In the meantime, this paper is a useful review which could be very productively incorporated; drop me an e-mail if you're unable to access it and I'll let you in. Verisimilus T 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] predominant aspects

The intro names three predominant aspects. Such prioritization is necessarily subjective. --Etxrge (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plant evolution

Evolution is inherently a historical process. Therefore the word history is redundant in the present title. I therefore suggest that the name is changed to plant evolution.

For almost all of its history this article has had the internal name plant evolution and the external name evolutionary history of plants. I believe such a discrepancy is incorrect. When amending this problem I chose the name I found better, plant evolution. Encyclopetey found this action rude, see my discussion page, and chose the other name. I cannot see why it is rude to change the external name and OK to change the internal name (and the external name at the same time). I removed a discrepancy and had to make a choice to do this. Encyclopetey acted only to influence the choice. --Etxrge (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion at least, the explanation you provided in your edit summary was quite sufficient to justify the move. Well done for being bold! Verisimilus T 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wiktionary:Lead section#Bold title, which says in part:
"If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface:"
In other words, the "discrepancy" is acceptable under Wikipedia convention and policies; your move based solely on an internal title was not required, despite your personal feelings. Further the article itself is not about Plant evolution, but about the appearance and spread of specific groups. Evolution is a much broader subject and is not really covered in the article. The article covers no processes, genetic changes, morphological transformations, evolutionary relationships, or any of the other issues normally associated with Plant evolution as a field of study. Worse, moving a high-importance article for WP:PLANTS breaks numerous links (or requires a redirect for all of them). Such a change really should be discussed before being made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Hi,

As per the cleanup tag on the article, I've had a little project running for a while to re-write this article to address the topic "The evolutionary history of plants". The pre-existing article, for what it's worth, is forked at Timeline of plant evolution, an article which I hope to focus my attention onto at a later point - so no contributions have been lost as a result of this re-write. I hope you'll find my article an improvement; I accept that it could still use some honing and re-wording in places, and I hope that the input of others will make it read a little more smoothly. I have, however, spent a considerable amount of time researching, structuring and formulating this article, so I would appreciate it if any major edits were discussed here before being implemented.

Thanks,

Smith609 Talk 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a vast improvement on the article. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "grades"

What's a grade and why is the word so tentative that it is in quotes? Can't you use a word that doesn't have to be in quotes. It's as if the opening sentence is about saying something you're not sure of. An unfortunate start to an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Grade does mean something in evolutionary biology, but it means something different from what you are using. So it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a good alternative for "grade"; it is a particular form of organization that is typically considered intermediary between a "primitive" and an "advanced" form. This terminology has fallen out of favor, but the concept of a "grade" is still used in paleobotanical literature where rleationships between groups are not always known. The word is in quotes because that is now standard for groupings that are paraphyletic, which is often true of evolutionary "grades". --02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)
Exactly - the term implies have an equivalent level of complexity without making implications about relationships. I'll replace the redirect at Evolutionary grade with a better definition, which can be wikilinked from this article. Any suggestions for suitable references, EncyloPetey? Smith609 Talk 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not an easy thing to find. Most authors use the term with the assumption that the reader will understand. I could find nothing useful for explanation in the published literature I have at hand, but did find a definition of grade at UCMP in Nan Arens' Virtual Paleobotany Lab [1]. It does not describe the typographic convention, but does at least provide a definition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Terms that are used with the assumption the reader will understand them are found in dictionaries, too. Both grade and clade are found in taxonomic glossaries and textbooks. The question is, do you mean a grade or a clade with the introductory sentence--plants overall as a clade, individual groups as grades, tied together somehow? It seems not useful that an article on the evolutionary history of plants should begin with a discussion of grades. The first sentence is odd and not compelling in the least. I'm not sure what is meant by it, other than I'm pretty sure the introductory sentence to this article should be discussing clades rather than grades. Nan hasn't been at Cal for years, so something more current would be nice. --207.62.177.227 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Judging by the comments here, it's probably best to avoid the term "grade" in the first sentence - so I've reworded it. I hope that makes it clearer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith609 (talk • contribs)

[edit] According to evolutionary theory

This[2] was a strange reversion commentary. Isn't that what the article is about, the "evolutionary history of plants" according to "evolutionary theory?" I think I've fallen into Bizarro Wikipedia lately.

I'm not sure it belongs in the lead sentence or even the first paragraph, but this did not need to be reverted with a full on dismissal of "evolutionary theory" as opposed to the "factual" accuracy of this article. Both this article and evolutionary theory are based on facts, that fossils exist, that genes and environment are the source of variation. If this was a fringe theory attempt to introduce something adding "Evolutionary Theory" to the lead paragraph is hardly the way to do it. It seemed like a good faith edit to add an important point to the article. A reversion followed by a discussion of the appropriate place for linking to evolutionary theory in general (if it's not already linked, which seems unlikely) would have been more appropriate than such a strange dismissal of the very basis of the article. --Blechnic (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps my edit summary was unhelpful. The comment read to me as if it had been added by a creationist with the intention of casting doubt on the article. I'd be willing to accept "according to the fossil record", or "according to all available evidence", but "according to evolutionary theory" seems implies that there is an alternative theory out there. I've yet to come across one! (not including beliefs as theories). Smith609 Talk 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no alternative, good or otherwise, but that doesn't mean what we're discussing isn't according to evolutionary theory. If creationists are out there linking to evolutionary theory in articles about the evolutionary history of organisms, let them! But I think it was just a reminder that this article should link early on to that theory, because that is the solid basis for this article. --Blechnic (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)