Talk:Plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Plant 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.

Biology Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page .

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.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Echo has identified Plant as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
	This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Archives
1

[edit] Plant Systems

There should be a list of different plant systems,and their uses--Tingpeng19:01 22 September 2007

Which systems do you mean? Are those systems found in all plants? This article is about all plants, including mosses and algae. If the systems you mean are only found in one groop of plants, then the information should be on the article for that group. For example, vascular tissue really should be on the page about vascular plants. --EncycloPetey 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food plants for Lepidoptera

Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history. When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal. An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation. The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies. This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete? Lots on Wikipedia is. If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article. There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores. In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied. I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em). I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it. You can't assume it's purposefully not listed. If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops. Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information? KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I think is inappropriate in level of detail, look at Solanum. The information there is inappropriate at this level, since Solanum species are used as food plants by numerous animals, including many mammals, birds, and also many orders of insects, not just the Lepidoptera. That sentence, in its present isolation, implies that there is no other important grazer. It has nothing to say about evolutionary or other relationships, though of course these may be important. Imc 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo. Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus. Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is. I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention. This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus. I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice plant.......

I have ice plant at home , its very beautiful. Have u ever heard of it? it grows in Winter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anishgirdhar (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Paleobotany

There is disproportionately too much information on fossil records and extinct plants on this page, which is meant to deal with the whole concept of what a plant is... SuperRuss

[edit] Doesn't print in Firefox

I found the error in the source, it is the image block that has ... "branch showing 27 annual growth rings, pale sapwood and dark heartwood" ..., I think the code for it is messed up, when it is removed it prints correctly. Teh420 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algae does not belong in plantae

Green Algae used to be placed in the Plant kingdom but it no longer is. I am not sure how recent algae was moved to the protista kingdom due to some reasons, but it would be most appreciated if the entry here on plantae was changed to not include algae. Algae is mostly unicellular, most algae cell walls are made of pectin, algae embryo's grow unprotected, and it is aquatic and marine. Ruishi 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon which green algae you are discussing, as the group is paraphyletic. Please see the article on Green algae to learn more about why your arguments have already been dealt with, why some Chlorophyta are properly placed in the plant kingdom and belong in this article, and why not all do. KP Botany 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And inasmuch as the Chlorophyta plus land plants form a monophyletic group, that group is equated to Plantae by many botanists. In fact, if there are chlorophytes that phylogenetically diverge prior to the divergence of the Charophyceae, all green algae must be included in the Plantae.--Curtis Clark 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm old fashioned however I would consider all eukaryotic algae as plants in the Plant Kingdom. The blue-greens of course are not - I'm not quite sure what to do with them.Osborne 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The blue greens are Bacteria. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All algae belong in the phyla Protista, Look it up!!! In every textbook I've read they are classifid as protists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.150.248 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picky details?

I noticed in the Importance-Food section:

"Virtually all human nutrition depends on land plants, directly or indirectly. The animals some people eat are mainly herbivores."

Should this be changed to include fish and the plants in that food chain or would that invite arguments about the status of algae? On the other hand, if it is appropriate to specifically refer to a dependence on "land plants," would it be good to also specify that it is the "land animals" (not fish) which are being referred to? Also, (getting more picky here) the current phrasing also seems to ignore the fact that a person who eats a carnivorous animal (such as most food fish if one wanted to include them) would also be getting nutrition from plants indirectly.

--Lex 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

What's the evolutionary history of plants? How far back can we trace it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Evolutionary history of plants.--Curtis Clark 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plants "recognize" their siblings?

I saw this link on Slashdot today: http://pressesc.com/01181755074_plants_recognise_siblings - or see the study directly. This is interesting material. Maybe it could be added to the article sometime? —msikma (user, talk) 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can go to Kin selection for sure. Shyamal 09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this on my plum tree?

1 2 3 4 5 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quietmartialartist 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your plum tree is sick, very sick, you have more than one fungal and bacterial organism living on the trunk and they have been there for a few years. Its hard to tell which one caused the canker like growth and corresponding dead tissue. If the tree does not produce fruit, I would remove it and replant another plum some were else on the property. (remember you will have best fruit set with at least two different tress for cross pollination) You have a primary infection that has caused tissue death and a number of secondary infections. Fungicides might help but its not likely since they are going the have a difficult time getting into the trunk. Hardyplants 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I did not answer your question, the stuff on your tree looks to be the trees defensive mechinsim against invaders. The Jelly or tar like secretions are produced by the tree to trap invaders and keep they away from the living tissues. Does your tree have a graft point, if so this is a likely location for the start of the infection- which could be a fungus or a bacteria. See this http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/bacterialcanker.htm 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try some fungicides and if that doesn't work I'll get rid of the tree. Quietmartialartist 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collage...

I like the taxobox collage idea. I really do. But all the pictures are flowering plants, except the squashed fern at the top. A similar discussion took place with the animal collage. Yes, the majority of plants are angiosperms, but doesn't mean we have to exclude everything else. If we could get a moss, a pine tree, and a gingko on there, that would be more indicative of plant diversity. Werothegreat 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. Most animals are beetles, and most atoms are hydrogen, but the diversity's the interesting part.--Curtis Clark 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a green alga, a bryophyte (moss), a fern, a gymnosperm, and a flowering plant (or two or three). Likewise, there should be images of whole plants, not just close-ups of their leaves and sexual appendages. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahahah!! That "sexual appendage" bit made my morning. Circeus 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Finnish article?

According to the Wikiproject Echo box at the top of this page, the Finnish (Suomi) article fi:Kasvi (Plants) is a featured article. However, there is no star on that article or any indication I can find that it has been a featured article. Can anyone sort this situation out? --EncycloPetey 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that it is just called a "Recommended article" over there, presumably without stars or other decoration indicating its special "status". --Van helsing 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at fi:Keskustelu:Kasvi. I think that template doesn't belong. (Too bad, it's an improvement over "featured articles" that are half as short as our non-featured one.) Circeus 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green algae

a simple mathematical problem. green algae are said to have 3800 species, but clicking on green algae, one gets to an article saying it has 1000-2000 species. the same occurs in some other cases. have i not read an explanation of this, is there one missing, or are some articles at fault? thanks, felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.236.89 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The green algae article is incorrect; there are at least 3800 species of green algae known. Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes "green algae" or even Chlorophyta has changed drastically in recent decades, so one must be careful when looking at numbers of species. The Chlorophyta article claims 8000 species in the group, and cites the same source I used for the figure of 3800 for the Plant#Diversity table. The table on this page is a recent and careful assessment of numbers from authoritative sources, with citations as given. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Plants for Science Fair

I've changed to plants...what plants should I use?

☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Algae isn't a plant

It's not a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct; green algae is a group of plants, not just one plant. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Picture

The composite image looks quite good, but the Sarraceniaceae (2 photos) and Asteraceae (3) are overrepresented - the surplus pictures would be better replaced by images of other taxa to represent a broader taxonomic / structural range. Also, on closer examination some of the images are of poor quality and aren't very clear. --Graminophile (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Plants improvement drive

A couple editors agreed that they'd be available to focus on this article for an improvement drive. I thought we'd start off by cobbling together a to-do list. One of the most difficult things is being comprehensive without being overwhelming. Items that seem to be missing or needed:

In-line references.
History. Haeckel isn't mentioned in text, just captions and taxobox. Previous treatments before "Plantae"?
Summary style for ~~the major divisions~~ Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seed plants.
Prose needed for "Factors affecting growth" lists.
Proper lead.
Summary style discussion of plant anatomy and plant morphology? Or will those topics be thoroughly discussed when taking care of #3? No, there are general features of organization, cellular structure, and physiology that are common to all (or almost all) plants.--EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the fun begin! --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying to cover the major divisions (taxonomic sense), it might be better to cover Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seeds plants, since each of these has its own article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's pretty much what I had in mind. That organization will cover discussion of all the divisions, which is what is important. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image


Original image		Proposed replacement

To address the concerns of the editor's message above our improvement drive here, I tried to create a better image for the taxobox. Comments, concerns? Most divisions are represented and I included images from the two largest families. Black border is easily changed. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary to have two pteridophyt images, and I'd by far favor an image offruit on plant than those raspberries, which look out of place. Maybe replace the black background images with natural setting ones too? Overall, it's a good improvement, though. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent feedback. I agree about the two Pteridophyta images and the fruit. Got any ideas for replacements? I personally like the black background images, but I have no problem with changing them. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

re: artificial BG, these look just as out of place as the raspberry image, because all the other were made in obviously natural settings. As for fruit images, there's Image:Apricots.jpg, Image:Plums.jpg, or Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, from FP. Circeus (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of ideas come to mind, but here are three technical points. (1) The new image has much better contrast and resolution in the images, so that it is possible to tell what you're looking at. This is an improvement. (2) The current image is about 100K, which will load rather quickly. The new image is 2.5M, which will not be good for slower connections. (3) All the yellows and reds are in the lower half of the image, which unabalances the colors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :-) Regarding image size, I wanted to use the lossless png format, which punches up the file size. But the thumbnails that will be on the page only register a difference of 41KB of the current photo to the 209KB of the proposed image. Not much of a difference. I'll see what I can do about the colors. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Version 2		Version 3

Any better? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk about timing lol. I personally think it's a great image. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The file size is still 2.5M though. Try moving the bottom row to the second row position (and shifting everything else down). I think that would balance the reds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give the row shifting a try tomorrow. I think you may be right about that; I'll just have to play around with it a bit more. I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the file size. It won't slow down the loading of this page much more than the current image does for slower connections. And clicking on the image to get to the image page reveals a 535KB thumbnail of the image. The only way a user would get the full 2.5M image is if they click through (twice) to the full res image. Not sure many will do that and I'm not sure we'd want to sacrifice any of the image's quality. I'll report back in tomorrow with the shifted row version to see how that looks. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There we go - version three has the rows shifted. Better? --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factors Affecting Growth

Plants take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. The level of carbon dioxide can greatly affect the growth rate, at least of some plants.Friendlyinnovators (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five kingdom classification

Isn't it outdated? I don't see it followed elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor much elsewhere. So why is it used here? Narayanese (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A reference is a reference. Many of the organisms called algae left the plant kingdom in the 1970s, and they haven't been back.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was more the bit about "are now included" I didn't like, but oh well, perhaps the difference between writing "Kingdom Plantae" and "protists" is enough to hint that the latter isn't a formal classification. Narayanese (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not see it used much in current scientific publications on taxonomy, but it is still predominant in textbooks at all levels. The issue must be addressed, or users will complain that our coverage is lacking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, the sentence manages to call cyanobacteria protists. Narayanese (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Im Frühling wird die Biosphäre (Pflanzen) von Süden nach Norden grün

Wie nennt sich das in der Fachsprache?
Ist das nicht eines der wichtigsten Entwicklungsmerkmale des Klimas und des Klimawandels?
Was sind die chemischen Prozesse in diesem Zusammenhang (Photosyntese?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fungi section

It's really wordy, plus it goes off-topic and discusses things that have nothing to do with plants. 2-3 rows should be enough to describe how non-plant they are. Narayanese (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plant needs

i think there should be an article on here that describes plant needs and groth in more depth --Olkni599 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several such articles started, including Plant physiology, Plant nutrition, and Meristem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: Wikipedia introduction cleanup | All pages needing cleanup