Talk:Flower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flower is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Flower is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
How to Archive

Contents

[edit] New Image

I removed the newly added close-up of a cactus flower, and put it on the Cactus page, where it shows well the large numbers of stamens, and relates to another image on the page. I think this page needs something else, because of all the blank space to the right of the index, but not a close-up in particular. KP Botany 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Flowers?

There are no such things as flowers especially the pretty, smell good ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.206.26 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that there is more on this page on human uses for flowers, than there are about flowers themselves! Personally, I think it would be helpful to list the various different kinds of flowers, with a short list of examples of each type. Did you know that flowers use sexual reproduction and not asexual reproduction

71.217.98.158 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "various different kinds"? There are many different ways to characterize flowers.--Curtis Clark 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Color of Flower Petals

Flowers are amazing. There color is so unique to each flower. I love flowers. The color of some floerw are amzing the way they get that idk but i will soon find out!!!!Hey all, an interesting question was presented in my local AP Biology class discussion. The talk consisted of the "story" of Gregor Mendel and his pea experiments, in order to illustrate the mathematics behind biostatistics, in other words some ability to form predictive models of resultant traits in offspring generations. Apparently, not yet even two hundred years ago we were of the opinion that traits are inherited from parents in some sort of blending theory of genetic inheritance. Of course, these days we know that the entire issue is slightly more complicated, see codominance and polygenes. Polygenes can be identified by one trait (hey, you just try to quantify specific phenotypical traits-- it's not easy doing this in reverse ) that is controlled through multiple genes (whatever allele it happens to be). Now, the question regarding flowers specifically is the following: given two parents, where one is pure white (purely recessive) and one is pure red (purely dominant), the resulting offspring flowers are going to be (apparently) pink ("blending of the parent traits" if you're ancient). Is the pink color a single wavelength, or due to some sort of mathematical variation of cell surfaces that express the particular genes throughout the surface of the petal? -- kanzure 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One theory that I have come across relates the question to dithering. The base pigment molecule of the flower petal is supposedly white, and that the flower structure itself is going to be more or less equally scattering wavelengths of light (think: photons and photochemistry calculations), except for an intensity or amount of present red pigment molecules. Still, this leaves questions unanswered such as how it comes to be expressed in these proportions. Another theory is that of different cells expressing different pigment molecules, but that's not the simplest theory (Occam's razor). -- kanzure


[edit] External Link

I Would like the website of www.Flowers.vg to be considered for an "External Link"

The website provides 10,000 free flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages

I feel the website will be useful for Wikipedia users

Eaglesnap 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! --NoahElhardt 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


I Would like the website of http://rapina.no.sapo.pt/Flores/ to be considered for an "External Link"

The website provides flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages.

Thanks.

The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! Latulla 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


I would like to recommend http://www.humanflowerproject.com be added as an external link pertaining to the 'Uses by Humans' section. The site is non-commercial and contains more than 1000 posts about the impact and uses of flowers in societies and cultures from around the world. It is well referenced with properly cited sources. Camillia 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also "External link www.flowers-pho tos.eu" in this page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.0.169 (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Flowers are nice and pretty and obviously the best out of all of the nature system. They have a various feature that keeps them well civilised just like humans...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.29.191 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to "Everyday Uses" List

I am surprised that in the list of the uses of flowers in "Everyday Life", "romantic gifts" is not listed as a category, when this is surely one of the biggest reasons people buy flowers. I know that corsages are mentioned, as well as use in decorating the home, but these are quite distinct uses. Can romantic gifts be added to the bullet point list?

[edit] Lacks a lot of citations

That pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. Lots of good statements without source citing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjuarezr (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Amborella

I reverted "Recent DNA analysis has determined that the oldest surviving flowering plant species is Amborella trichopoda on the Pacific island of New Caledonia." As written, it is patently false: DNA evidence could never show that it is the oldest species, since it could be a recent speciation in an otherwise extinct lineage, and the DNA evidence would be the same. I suspect the editor wanted to comment on the age of the lineage, but even there it is tricky: the lineage of all angiosperms except the Amborella lineage is exactly the same as the age of the Amborella lineage. The most accurate way to put it is that Amborella is the sister group to all the rest of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The solution here was not to reverse, but to reword. This species has in fact been placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree of the angiosperms. A reference was cited, but none for the reversion. Reword, don't revert. Tmangray 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it. The species cannot possibly be placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree. The species is extant today, and there is no evidence at all whatsoever that the same species existed back in the mid-Cretaceous or whenever. It's the lineage that's old, and it is no more or less correct to say that it is at the base of the tree than it is to say that the lineage of the rest of the angiosperms is at the base of Amborellas tree. I reworded your restoration to make this all clear.--Curtis Clark 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I accept the rewording, but the species, or the language about being basal is from the researchers. Of course, the species extant today is not exactly like whatever existed those millions of years ago, but relative to other species, it is apparently less changed, and thus provides valuable clues and information about the transition from non-flowering to flowering plants. Tmangray 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, many researchers use language that obscures, rather than clarifies, the import of their discoveries. I agree that Amborella provides valuable clues—in fact, its importance is difficult to overestimate—but the "less changed" part is something that can and must be described on a feature-by-feature basis, using the principles of outgroup comparison.


An analogy would be to say that the first birds looked like crocodiles, since the crocodylians are the sister group to the birds/dinosaurs. Fortunately, there are fossils that, by their morphology, seem to just precede the croc-dino split, and they look like neither crocs nor dinos. But it's the morphology of the crocs, especially their plesiomorphies (as well as the plesiomorphies of the dinos) that allow us to assign the fossils to just before the split. So in a sense, Amborella is the crocodile of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 03:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sarracenia picture

Sarracenia has a very distinct and peculiar flower anatomy (style). Maybe a more "conventional" flower would be more useful. What do you think about something more like this Fritillaria? Aelwyn 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the Sarracenia flower diagram to show its unusual characteristics, and was surprised when it was placed on the flower page. I agree that a more typical flower would be better. While I would prefer a dicot (monocots are over-used in this context), anything that has all of the flower parts clearly labeled would be fine by me. I just haven't had the time to put together another well-made picture/diagram. If you do, please feel free. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unidentified flower

I saw this flower on the forest floor at about 800ft elevation in Portland, OR. Wondering if anyone knows what it might be? I assume it's a wild flower, thought it might be an orchid or iris but doesn't really look quite like either. If you know, feel free to add to the description. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Genus is Trillium Aelwyn 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morphology section > Include Penduncle with Pedicel

As long as the page is very detailed, would it make sense to add Peduncle in Morphology? Wouldn't the stem of a flower be the named "pedicel", but with the exception that its not a single flower on a single stalk? If that's right, not all flowers are on pedicels, but only flowers that are part of an inflorescence. Did I get that right? : - ) ... For example, the flower of a Trillium is not on a pedicel, because its a single flower on the stem.... Check it out and post feedback. Mdvaden 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle holds one flower, when the inflorescence is composed of two or more flowers the peduncle is the stem that holds the pedicels that attaches to the single flowers. 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle is the stem of an inflorescence, not of a flower. I suppose in the case of a solitary inflorescence, the inflorescence could be composed of a single flower.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good case for some good diagrams, as Curtis Clark says a peduncle is the stem that holds the inflorescence to a main stem, I was working from the other direction and that is not as clear. If the plant only produces single flowers then its termed a peduncle like in a number of the monocots. Another term that some what relates is a scape, which can be thought of as a modified peduncle rising from the ground with reduced leaves. Hardyplants 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. My college text book for horticulture, listed a single stem for a single flower as a peduncle. Maybe the definition changed, although I found two online references yesterday mentioning that a singled stemmed flower had a peduncle.
The diagrams you suggested would be handy to add. The resouces I found, indicated that Curtis Clark is right about a peduncle being the stem of an inflourescence, but added further that a peduncle is the stem of a single flower.
At least this one should be easier to figure out than my quest to learn what the lilies were I saw in the Darlingtonia bog this week. I thought they were just lilies, until the brochure asked a question that implied they were the Darlingtonia flowers. But it seems that they are a different lily, also orange red. Mdvaden 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's one example of an older document, in case definitions changed: Harvard Univertity / Arnold Arboretum Document from 1940
Recent Resource: University of Delaware Botanical Mdvaden 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morphology > Add "Sessile" ??

In Morphology - aside from the Peduncle matter - the section seems to imply that every flower is on a pedecil. What about flowers that are "sessile"? Would that be a good spot to mention sessile for a distinction? Mdvaden 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sessile is not really a morphological organ per-say but describes how the organ is attached, adding that flowers that do not have pedicils or peduncles are joined to the stem or branch with out stems are sessile would be useful, some inflorescences are composed completely of sessile flowers, like many 'mints' with verticels. Hardyplants 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful that this page does not get bogged down in to many terms, there are a few hundred words used to describe flower parts and how they are placed and develop on the plant. Hardyplants 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no need to bog down, and if not all flowers are on pedicils, then the phrase should be changed, maybe in a simple way like you suggested. I didn't think that more info was needed, just clear and accurate info. That's the tricky thing about info - the less there is, the easier it is to be accurate. But accuracy is the aim. Thanks for reading the note. Mdvaden 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link www.flowers-pho tos.eu

Why this site has been removed repeatedly from External links? I think that there isn't any reason, if so I'll add the site again! Please reply if you know any reason.

87.4.2.66 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Marco Colli


There are many hundred websites that have pictures of flowers on them, and many that have more and properly ID'd plants. These type of links do not really help us in describing the subject matter, it appears semi-commercial in nature, also it has in correct information... the picture for Alchemilla alpina does not show the flowers of Alchemilla - though there are some leaves in the lower right side that are from a Alchemilla species. Hardyplants 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a commercial site because it doesn't sell photos or plants... then a mistake can occur because the site accepts users's share (as wiki). However the flower Alchemilla alpina was classified by a botanist (then what flower is it?). Finally I do not know many sites with hundreds photos of wild flowers: can you tell me some? [Thanks for reply and... excuse my bad English] 80.104.1.191 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Marco Colli
It's a commercial site because it hosts Ads by Google. Having a Wikipedia link directs traffic to it, which financially benefits the site owner. That means it must meet a higher standard in terms of relevance--it needs to provide something that no other link can provide, that relates directly to the article, and that doesn't duplicate information already in the article.--Curtis Clark 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A new version has been released. There's only an Ad by Google on the lateral menu which lets the site survive. Then, there are a lot of flowers classified. I think that this is a useful resource for wikipedia users. Will the site be listed on Wikipedia if I remove the Ads by Google? If no, why? Or alternatively, can I add the site to References? Thanks.
I've also noticed that there's an external link ("Oily Fossils Provide Clues To The Evolution Of Flowers") to www.sciencedaily.com and this site is full of ads! Does it meet a higher standard in terms of relevance? I think it doesn't: it's only an article, flowers-pho tos.eu is a whole site. (edit) There's onother site with ads: www.livescience.com

[edit] Evolutionary Bias?

Err, folks, to my understanding, wikipedia attempts to be an organized collection of facts. If I am wrong on that matter please inform me. As I can not have replies before I write the comment, I will continue under the assumption stated in the first sentence. So now I wonder why you have evolutionary information on flowers in here. It should at least be labeled as theoretical information: not fact. If you can prove that the evolution section in the article is true beyond a shadow of a doubt or point me to someone who already has, not only will I be thoroughly impressed, then I would see no problem with it being labeled as fact. As this has not been done insofar as I noticed, I believe there need to be changes made. As I am not particularly knowlegeable on the subject of flowers and came to wikipedia for information on the aforementioned subject, I do not believe I can make adequate changes. Please get back to me or make a move in a neutral direction or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helk62 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is in the area of botany, which is a science, and science doesn't deal with "true beyond a shadow of a doubt," but only with observations of the physical universe. KP Botany 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Science, by definition, does not give or look for any absolute truth, as religion does. Science only tries to give problems the explanation that seems more reasonable and that rises the fewer other questions only using the poor and uncertain data we can detect with our senses (physical quantities). Any explanation that involves a supernatural force must then be rejected by science, in the end, because of the very nature of it. We cannot really believe in science, as it explains us many things, but does not deal with any real truth. On the other hand, we cannot use religion to solve scientific problems. When an apple falls we say it was because of the gravity, but in fact it is the opposite: we invented gravity because apples used to fall and keep falling. It explained and keeps explaining our experience very well. We invented evolution because it explained many things and we still talk about it (or "believe" in it) because it keeps explaining more and more. I'm a science student and an agnostic, I think evolution really happened and that it is still happening, just because it seems a very reasonable and elegant explanation to me. If you try to understand what I mean (apart from my laughable English), you will. If you don't want to, please stop bothering. Comments are welcome. Aelwyn 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the enlightening edits gentlemen. --Helk62 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. KP Botany 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I get it now! Aewyn says that "we invented gravity." Makes perfect sense now! Perhaps that's why all the dinosaurs became extinct, because we humans had not yet invented gravity, and they all just floated away from the planet! Thank YOU for your perfect logic. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image of rare flowers

I agree we need a higher quality picture. You have a great and rare subject with this plant and if the picture was of higher quality, it would deserve a place on this page, but the image is washed out and low in resolution. I would fix it my self if I thought I could improve it, but I fear I can't.Hardyplants 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Hardyplants and Fir0002 Aelwyn 06:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morphology section

I think a subsection explaining floral diagrams and their use should be added, see as an example : de:Blütendiagramm. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a flower diagram

[edit] Lead illustration

Although no one has come up with a fully satisfactory lead illustration for this article, the one recently added by User:Alvesgaspar is especially unfortunate, in that it consists mainly of capitula of Asteraceae (making it even harder to convince amateurs that the capitulum is an inflorescence, not a flower), and even the two single-flower examples are radially symmetric, with showy petals. It would really be better to have but a single example than to imply that this image is in any way representative of the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the addition, but Curtis Clark has a very good point, daises are not really flowers but collections of small flowers. Also many plants do not have flowers that are large and showy - there is much greater diversity in real flowers than what is shown and its currently deceptive with all the "daisy" like flowers. Its pretty but not illustrative of the subject. Hardyplants (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are right, the main intent of the illustration is aesthetical, please fell free to replace it with a better one, Anyway I'll try to compile a new and more representative poster with my limited gallery of flowers (mostly Asteraceae, I'm afraid) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not use images from Wikimedia Commons? They all have licensing appropriate to that use. Your basic layout idea is a good one; it just needs better examples.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What do you think now? Twelve flowers of different families, most of them wild, and only two inflorescences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and I really like the arrangement of colors. The article still needs some examples of wind-pollinated flowers without petals—I'll hunt some up—but this makes a nice lead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] adding a new language

This is not allowed to edit this page, then how to add an article in some other language? I wanted to add this: fa:گل گیاه --Iranway (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it for you[1], semi protection does not allow a new account to edit for a few days, but after you'l be able to. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)