Talk:Pinguicula moranensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Pinguicula moranensis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Pinguicula moranensis is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance for WikiProject Plants assessment.
Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

I moved a comment a user left in the main article to here, where it belongs. The following words are his, not mine. -Quintote 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From 24.176.224.7 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
The final paragraph says it is "non-carnivorous" then it proceeds to tell how the plant utilizes the chemicals from the insects. Isn't this wrong?

[edit] FAC lead section

  • I'm with Hesperian--I think somebody probably asked you to include in-line references in the introduction, but I've changed my mind on this. I don't like them, especially multiples for single statements. One or two for something not handled below is fine.
  • "Pinguicula moranensis is a perennial rosette-forming insectivorous herb native to Mexico and Guatemala.[3]"
    • Include the family in the introductory sentence of botanical articles in general, imo, because this is how botanists discuss plants, even horticulturists and agronomists and farmers do this. Even though it states it in the taxobox. I think it should also say "seasonally dimorphic" or in English the same thing in the introduction, if not the first sentence, soon.
      • There really isn't a way to fit the family classification into the introductory sentences without making them awkward or unreadable for the lay person. Furthermore, since the info is already presented in the taxobox, I don't think it is that important in the intro (this isn't a scientific publication, so not all the same rules apply). None of the other plant or even TOL (afaik) FA's have mentioned the family name in the intro. The intro already states that the plant states that the plant is seasonally dimorphic by listing the different seasonal growth forms.--NoahElhardt 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also use "butterwort" in the introductory paragraph. I think this and the family name in the introductory paragraph are minor substantive issues.
  • "It forms summer rosettes of flat, succulent leaves up to 10 centimeters (4 in) long, which are covered in mucilagenous (sticky) glands that attract, trap, and digest arthropod prey."
    • Do they pretty much eat only arthropod prey? I think they are one of the carnivorous species pretty much limited to arthropods. I notice you later use insect more throughout, this is good, as you mention their prey is predominantly flies.
      • The diet of most carnivorous plants is limited to arthropod prey (the exception being the larger nepenthes which can trap small rodents, and the frogs and such that occasionally get trapped by Sarracenia or Venus fly traps.) While insects do make up most of the diet, other arthropods such as spiders do occasionally get caught, so I used the term here.--NoahElhardt 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Nutrients derived from the prey are used to supplement the nutrient-poor substrate that the plant grows in."
    • Is the substrate generally nutrient poor, or is this dominated by a lack of available nitrogen?
      • I think a lack of nitrogen is the biggest limiting factor, but since they often grow on bare rock, other nutrients are likely to be lacking as well.--NoahElhardt 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "In the winter the plant forms a non-carnivorous rosette of small, fleshy leaves that conserves energy while food and moisture supplies are low. Single pink, purple, or violet flowers appear twice a year on upright stalks up to 25 centimeters long."
    • Do you discuss how they conserve energy later on? Also, you listed the colors in their proper order, I'm pretty sure.
      • I mention why the carnivorous mechanisms are costly, limiting the benefits of carnivory. See the last paragraph in the "Leaves and carnivory" section. There is a correct order for listing colors? wow... --NoahElhardt 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The species was first collected by Humboldt and Bonpland on the outskirts of Mina de Moran in the Sierra de Pachuca in Hidalgo, Mexico on their Latin American expedition of 1799–1804.[4]"
    • Use their full names with the first mention, even though its the introductory paragraph, and who their expediction was for, but this can be when you list them later. I like it better in the introductory paragraph, at least their patronage, later, when you mention the botanists who first found and later identified this flower, you should mention what country they sailed from, the name of the ship and its captain, and the king or whoever sponsored. It sounds like a lot, but it can be handled in one sentence, not in the lead section with all of this. At least say they sailed under the sponsorship of king or lord somebody-with-money in the lead. It can be their abbreviated names, with full names and ranks later, but not just their surnames in the first mention.
  • "Based on these collections, Humboldt, Bonpland and Carl Sigismund Kunth described this species in Nova Genera et Species Plantarum in 1817."
    • Is this one of the Humboldt et al. joint volumes? Say parenthetically, in commas after the title, the volume number and a series of books on species of the New World discovered by these two, in much nicer English than I said.
  • "The extremely variable species has been redefined at least twice since,[4][5][6] while several new species have been segregated from it based on various geographical or morphological distinctions, although the legitimacy of some of these is still debated.[7]"
    • This simply must be discussed more later on, but in this case, because of the botanical nature of the statement, I disagree with Hesperian (only in this one sentence in the lead section, though), but suggest a single reference for the first part, and a single reference in the second part of the sentence, rather than 3 references for the first part--save the full story for later. What's the resultant or current status, is it well-sorted with the species now well-segregated with broad agreement among botanists at least?
  • "P. moranensis remains the most common and most widely distributed member of the Section Orcheosanthus.[4]"
    • Sections should be mentioned with their subgenus, of the Section Orcheosanthus, subgenus Pinguicula or whatever, for the first mention, or if its the only one mentioned.
  • "It has long been cultivated for its carnivorous nature and attractive flowers, and is one of the most common butterworts in cultivation."
    • This is too late, imo, for the first mention of "butterwort," say it in the first sentence, second at very latest, that these are butterworts, as this is what most people think of when they think of the butterworts, Pinquicula.
  • "The generic name Pinguicula is derived from the Latin pinguis (meaning "fat") due to the buttery texture of the surface of the carnivorous leaves. The specific epithet P. moranensis refers to its type location, Mina de Moran."
    • I like this, buttery texture of the leaves, and like it right here at the end of the lead section, rather than done elsewhere in the article.

KP Botany 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morphology

One of the captions for the flowers says that morphology is variable-- this should be 'shape', morphology would be parts, like one flower having petals and another not having petals. Hardyplants 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood the word morphology to deal with the form of an organ or organism, rather than the number or type of its parts. Several definitions I have looked up, including the WP definition (morphology_(biology)), agree. --NoahElhardt 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Properly used it deals with the structure of the plants, how many, what shape and were those parts are placed and to some extent were those part developed from, generally at a species level or population level. If I was to read the caption "morphological Different" in one of my plant keys or plant descriptions, I would have a different idea than what you mean the flowers are variable in size, since most plants have variation in the size of their parts anyway, much of which is dependent on growth responses effected by the environment. A good plant description gives the morphology of the flowers - the number of parts, were they are placed and how they are shaped and lists a range for the size of those parts. Many plants do have morphologically different parts, plants with separated sex's, plants that grow one year and bloom the next year, leaf shape at the base of the plant verse the leaf shape at the growing point of the plant. I did not change the caption my self because in a overly broad definition of "morphological" it could be argued that its correct, but as a description of the flowers it ambiguous ( even with the picture)- while the "flower size varies greatly" is precise, the flowers still have the same shape and types of parts and part numbers. Hardyplants 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How to" content

Shouldn't the tips on cultivation be removed? See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colleection of information", point 4. Kind of surprising that they're in this article considering it's featured. Kotare 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. It passed FAC without any objections. Mgiganteus1 08:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but I thought it could have been added afterwards.. I dunno.. whether the content in these sort of cultivation sections is "how to" content is a pretty subjective judgement but ultimately I guess if it really was inappropriate content for wikipedia it wouldn't be in a featured article. Cheers, Kotare 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be changed from insectivorous to Carnivorous? My Pings have caught many small spiders which are not insects...

--NeciFiX--