Talk:Plant

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)

Respiration

The link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't offer any obvious "plant" choices. A basic page on Respiration (plant) seems to be missing. Cellular respiration is too detailed to offer any identifiable information to anyone who doesn't already know what he/she is looking for coming from this page. A step in between is needed. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. The issue with Cellular respiration is not that it is too detailed, but that it isn't about the exchange of gases with plant roots at all. At least for now, I've piped the link to Gas diffusion in soil, which should probably do OK until that article is expanded enough to need splitting (I suspect Root respiration would be the right name for an article, if there is to be a new one). Kingdon (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Root respiration would create yet another page about plants that, though probably more appropriate for experts, would leave non-experts in the dust. Respiration is generally associated with air, and thus leaves are what people would be looking at, rather than roots, which are in the ground. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's air in the soil. How else do you think that soil insects breathe?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he article wouldn't be for people looking for what bugs breathe but mostly for ordinary people (non-experts) who are trying to figure out what happens with the O2 and CO2 in plants. Hence Respiration (plant) They are thinking air-breathe-(respiration is already pushing it, but a doable jump) I keep being flabbergasted that the botanical sections in Wikipedia are more difficult to find something in than in Particle Physics. The goal with naming, writing and organizing articles in an encyclopedia should be to make information accessible to it's readers, not finding some clever scheme, logical explanation or structure that keeps it usable only to people deeply immersed in the field and willing to follow endless strings of links through species lists and highly specialized pages. If you'd like a practical example check through the RefDesk archives and see how many people have failed to find things in the articles. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Composite images in taxoboxes (just like the main page for Plant)

I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.

I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, (Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.

Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.

I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.

I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...

Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.

Before and after colour correction of taxobox image for Vascular_plant

One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. --Snek01 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Plant" vs. "Viridiplantae"

User:EncycloPetey has twice redirected Viridiplantae into "plant". I disagree with this approach, but of course I defer to the community consensus. However, I feel it should be discussed before being redirected a third time. --Arcadian (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed here, and there, rather than continuing with reversions. This article is a difficult mish-mash of the accurate and really unscientific and of popular culture in plants. What to do? I think there's room for a good article specifically on the history of how Viridiplantae is used.

By the way, why is the taxobox image here including a picture of Volvox as its green algae? It should be Chara or something. I think I agreed to this image, but never thought about this aspect. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the name of this article. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), "Scientific names are to be used as page titles". "Plant" should be either be moved to "Plantae", or it should lose its infobox. --Arcadian (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, extremely common names are used, and there are few words as common as this in English, and there is an attempt at creating a purely botanical article at Plant (botanical), which should be the one called Plantae. Let's stick to the topic of Viridiplantae, please. --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues are directly related. If the article "plant" is about the word "plant" and the various ways in which it is used in English, then then we can't redirect "Viridiplantae" into "plant". (We could arguably redirect it into "Archaeplastida". I would still disagree with that choice, but at least it would be compliant with policies.) --Arcadian (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about this article and whether or not Viridiplantae should be a redirect to this or its own article. Now you want to discuss changing the title of this article. No problem. Go for it, and I'll just revert Viridiplantae to a redirect to Plant. You decide what you want. --KP Botany (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I am reading between the lines correctly, I think we are in largely agreement over the "what", though we may disagree over the "why". For the record, I support a "plant" article focused upon English usage and language history, and articles at "Archaeplastida" and "Viridiplantae" for the scientific information. I agree with you that an actual move or split is not directly part the current discussion. However, EncycloPetey has twice characterized the Viridiplantae content as a fork of the plant page, using that as the justification for redirecting Viridiplantae to plant. That's why I feel that a determination of the subject of the plant article is relevant to the current discussion, so that we can figure out if Wikipedia:Content forking applies. --Arcadian (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That would make "Plant" a Wiktionary entry, and not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about words—their history and usage. And yes, the "Viridiplantae" article as you have proposed it would be a content fork, since we curently treat the circumsciption of the green plants at the Plant article. Please resolve the issue before forking the article again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By your reasoning, dozens more articles would need to be merged into the "plant" article. You do not appear to have generated support for your case yet. Please resolve the issue before merging the article for a fourth time. --Arcadian (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first question that needs to be answered here is do the terms "plant" and "Viridiplantae" have essentially the same meaning? Hesperian 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Algae tree

Viridiplantae has the same meaning as "green plant", and is equal to Green algae+Embryophyta (land plants) or Chlorophyta+Streptophyta. (There are tiny exceptions, but they are beyond the scope of this argument.) However, the term "plant" does not have a reliable modern scientific definition. --Arcadian (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)--Arcadian (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Plant=Archaeplastida is pretty common. That's why having an "extended disambiguation page" similar to the current Plant (botanical) at Plant would be a good idea, it also means this article can finally divest itself of the two fungi and algae sections. Btw, that tree isn't very good Arcadian; Chromista and Cabozoa aren't really the most accepted groups. Narayanese (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about Chromista and Cabozoa (I added the illustration to illustrate Viridiplantae, not the other groups). I also agree Plant=Archaeplastida is common (though the term "Archaeplastida" may be on the way out: see PMID 18612431.) --Arcadian (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The data in that paper is a bit weak. Interesting nonetheless. Narayanese (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the only paper to question Archaeplastida (PMID 17194223 covers this topic with reference to various studies). The lesson I draw from this is that we don't really know yet, and we should take all of these with a grain of salt. Kingdon (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So back to the issue: Is this article about Viridiplantae or Archaeplastida, or is it about something else? Is the common understanding of "plant" so vague that this page should be a disambiguation or index page, or is it possible to say something about plants in the common, ambiguous meaning and make it an article? I note that there is a section about theories about light in the respective article, so perhaps it is okay for this article to treat older ideas about the circumscription of plants. But all these questions need to be addressed, IMO, before the issue at hand can be satisfactorily resolved.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The major point from Curtis' post needs addressed, imo, and that is that the word "plant" has a meaning in the vernacular that is long-standing and major, and needs addressed in an article. The scope of that article is another issue that should be addressed. I don't like to see major topics in the vernacular turned into dabs. It's annoying as a user of the encyclopedia to be taken to a dab when you could easily poll a couple of thousand people and come up with the same general idea of what a plant page should be, but specialists get in there and decide to dab it to all sorts of nonsense. A plant is a plant, and that has not been well defined ever, as it is a common term not a scientific term. The word, however, is used by the scientific community.

What is this article about, though? Is it, as Curtis asks, "about Viridiplantae or Archaeplastida, or is it about something else?" While I think the article strives to be about Viridiplantae, it diverges into Archaeplastida and belong in its introductory section on Algae and Fungi. I would like that part moved down and pared down if the article is about Viridplantae. However, if the article is about plant in the vernacular, we can move away from the technical definitions and into the common language. Are the red algae considered plants in the common language? It used to mean anything that photosynthesized. As far-fetched as it now seems, the fungi were considered plants by some folks, and they were studied by botanists.

Can we legitimately have a general article about plant? I think so, and I think we should as a service to readers. My opinion is we should define the scope of this article and use the Viridiplantae as a technical page for the taxonomic and evolutionary issues of green plants (whatever they are). --KP Botany (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about this as an outline?

1. Intro
2. Historical views
3. Green plants and their relatives (archaeplastida and viridiplantae could be main articles off this)
4. Algae (main articles as needed)
5. Fungi (main article Fungi)
6. Bacteria [these were considered plants by most botanists prior to the 1970s--main articles as appropriate]
7. Plants and humans

Thus the article would serve as a jumping-off place for the major groups once called plants, and would tell the average reader what they wanted to know either here or through a single click.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

With an introductory section and appropriate links to evolution and taxonomy in the Green plants and their relatives section, and photosynthesis. I think this could be an excellent outline for this article. --KP Botany (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, dabing Plant is a silly idea. It is very hard to write an article that has to be so broad as to kep the whole thing an introduction that funnels people into different places for the depth they needed. I also agree that making an article on a scientifically defined group of "plants" isn't a content fork. I would like to see a section on "plants" and ecology retained, particularly if we have a Plants and humans section. Earthdirt (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image updates

Hi, folks. I don't mean to derail the above conversation, but KP Botany asked me to do a little work on the taxobox image for this article. Curtis joined in and it was suggested I replace the Volvox image with the image from the taxobox in Desmidiales. (Conversation here). I also replaced the fern image. I'm still not entirely happy with the orchid image and simple browsing for images on the Orchidaceae at commons is maddening unless you know which species or genus you want to look for. There's always room for improvement elsewhere. Any suggestions? I believe someone (EncycloPetey?) once mentioned that it may be too long. If there are similar concerns, I can work on it while I have the files open and dusted off. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I miss the fiddleneck, but I love the new fern image. Yes, it would be nice to have an obscenely gorgeous image of an orchid, imo. I like it, Rkitko. I don't think it has to be perfect, but attractive helps. --KP Botany (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a great composite (though so was the original), though I agree with what KP said about the orchid. Personally I'm not a fan or roses, especially not orange ones...maybe you could replace it with an Arabidopsis :) (Not that Arabidopsis is a real plant any more...) Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I included the rose because it's easily recognized by most people and the color just came from one of the better photos I found. It would be nice to get an Arabidopsis photo in there, too. I was also thinking some kind of fossil taxa would be nice. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably biased (as one who lives in a house full of Cymbidiums), but seems to be like Cymbidium often illustrates the bauplan of an orchid pretty well, although I don't see a lot of good photos at commons. One which is good is File:Cymbidium08_black.jpg Kingdon (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a decent image. Certainly better than the current washed-out one. I'll pop it in and see how it looks. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unwilling to vote for Cymbidium as the orchid picture, because they seem so common, orchid wise. However, that is actually a good reason for having a cymbidium orchid in the image, just like having the hybrid rose rather than a wild rose. I think familiar plants enhance an image of this nature, and, really, I would rather have a Cymbidium than just about any other orchid in the image, except, of course, a spectacular profile of a Darwin orchid. I used to live near acres of orchid greenhouses and loved to go visit them in the rain. I like the one Kingdon picked, although I'd almost rather a pink/violet one. Except that the image is really nice. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the goal of the image to circumscribe Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, or something else? --Arcadian (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the outcome of the above discussion. As it is, and if I understand all this, it currently represents Viridiplantae, but it could also represent Archaeplastida (the omission of images of the other taxa excluded from Viridiplantae but included in Archaeplastida need not alter what this composite image displays). --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I agree that the sections could be merged.Etineskid (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Info

I found this info here: Plants Enjoy Women's Voices More than Men's? Should we include it in here, for example, in the Factors determining growth section? --Siliconov (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest at least tracking down the original scientific source for this before adding anything to the main article, that is the scientific paper in which the work is described. The web article listed makes no reference to any reliable source in which this might have been published. More generally, the description of the research in this web article sounds rather bogus, and may be heavily distorted from the original work. For instance, why should plants respond to the voices of a recently evolved species like humans? I would expect the exact nature and hypotheses of any peer-reviewed publication to expand on this, and provide crucial details needed here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ok then. I just liked the info, but forgot about sources and such things. Thanks for opening my eyes :). --Siliconov (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry if I came across as a big, wet blanket above. One of the problems with WP articles is ensuring that they don't accumulate too much information, and that they stay focussed on material that's most pertinent to the subject at hand. We don't know what readers want from a particular article, so sticking with the most relevant information is probably best. Aside from my suspicion that the original work has been mangled by a journalist, my concern is that this particular information is (a) rather specific, and (b) somewhat random for our main article on plants as a major biological group. But I may have sounded like some kill-joy bureaucrat (unless ... that's what I've become!). Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing about plants growing more when talked to is a result of increased carbon dioxide anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this really does not belong in this article, even if found to be true. Abductive, do you have any study that backs up atmospheric CO2 as limiting factor in plant growth in genral and more specificaly one that covers this area of inquiry? Hardyplants (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any college biology textbook says that CO₂ is the limiting nutrient for most plants. The talking to your plants science fair experiment source might be harder to come by if you want it to be reliable. I'm super busy IRL so I'll have to get back to you in a few days. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The relationship between plant performance and atmospheric CO₂ is well-established, both from experiments with living plants (e.g. De Souza et al. [2008]. Elevated CO2 increases photosynthesis, biomass and productivity, and modifies gene expression in sugarcane. Plant Cell and Environment 31, 1116-1127) and by examining fossil material (e.g. Franks, P.J. & Beerling, D.J. [2009]. Maximum leaf conductance driven by CO2 effects on stomatal size and density over geologic time. PNAS 106, 10343-10347). In fact, it's a feedback that's often included in climate models (e.g. Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A. and Totterdell, I. J. [2000]. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408, 184-187).

That said, I don't know that CO₂ is (universally) the most limiting nutrient for land plants, and would be interested to see a source for that. Water is often much more limiting to plant growth (think: desert), although the two often go hand-in-hand since plants lose water through transpiration when getting CO₂ from the atmosphere. And don't forget that mineral nutrients like nitrates and phosphates are routinely added by farmers to their crops. If CO₂ really was the most limiting nutrient, one might not expect to see much of a response from carbon-stressed plants by the addition of the latter.

Returning to the original story that started this discussion, I still think that the male/female "results" are probably the product of an over-eager PR department. But it would still be useful to see the formal publication that inspired the story. Whether they merit inclusion in the article can be decided then. Adding some SYNTH to the article on how talking to your plants helps them should probably be avoided. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have an article on growth requirements of plants, for placement of any potential useful information on this topic? I think that Plumbago has struck very close to the crux of this issue, in that CO2, by its self is not much of a limiting factor in growth for most plants (which are able to absorb enough from the atmosphere). But CO2, coppeled along with other conditions like water availability, temperature and any shortages of other necessary nutrients play a more pronounced role in limiting plant growth, the effect of CO2 is more synergistic than direct. Any ideas on where info covering conditions that limit or enhance plant growth should go? My person experience of conditions that limit growth would include too little or to much water, light, space, shortages of nutrients like Nitrogen, Iron ect or toxicity from other chemicals and elements and oxygen shortage, I am willing to start such a page. Hardyplants (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Water is not a nutrient, so CO₂ is the limiting nutrient. There are a handful of places on Earth so short of Nitrogen that plants have has to adapt; think pitcher plants. Otherwise nitrogen is not limiting. Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The concept of limiting nutrients is different for every plant and its environment. CO₂ may be the limiting factor for some aquatic plants, while phosphorus or nitrogen or perhaps even a micronutrient may be the main limiting nutrient. Since it's so variable, I'm not sure how instructive it might be to include in this article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading up on the subject? Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I searched the primary literature and also reached back into my edition of Campbell's Biology textbook. The only discussion there was of limiting nutrients in marine environments, where it notes that nitrogen and phosphorus are often the most limiting. It also gives an example where iron, a micronutrient, is the limiting nutrient. My other botany-specific textbooks are at home so I don't have the chance to thumb through those at the moment. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we already do have an article on limiting factor, which is in need of expansion. Perhaps referenced information can go there. If it becomes too unwieldy, consider limiting factors in plants or something similar. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In a real sense, water is treated as a nutrient by plants. It's a small molecule that is dissociated (cf. oxygen evolution) and utilised (cf. in carbohydrates) in metabolism. While it is a widely available liquid upon which terrestrial life is founded, and while its use in metabolism is a minor one relative to transpiration, it's not difficult to see the parallel with traditional nutrients like nitrate and phosphate.

Anyway, this section began with a off-the-wall suggestion that plant growth responded differently to male and female voices. This suggestion, which has now deviated into a discussion of CO₂ and H₂O, has yet to be supported by either the original press statement or the scientific paper that it was based upon. Let's not forget that. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What are plants made of, aside from water

I couldnt find any mention of the chemical composition of plants in the article. And how does this composition vary among the plant kingdom? I have heard it said that plants are mainly sugars (lignocellulose) and animals are mainly proteins (except maybe fat people, and not counting bones). --Smokefoot (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a subject better handled at the article Phytochemistry, which is unfortunately rather short. The answer will depend on whether you are talking about the chemical compounds or the constituent elements. The relative amount of constituent elements differs between plants and vertebrate mostly on the basis of the addiitonal minerals needed to construct a skeleton. If you chose not to count bones, that also has a huge impact on your answer. You'd need to specify which parts of each organism you want to ignore. Additionally, the chemical composition of woody plants changes with age, since wood contains chemicals not found in non-woody tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More explicit link to Plant sexuality

Hi there, I came here looking for what I finally discovered in the article Plant sexuality. I searched for "sex" and "gender" but had no luck.

I appreciate that this article does actually link to Plant Sexuality, but I would suggest a more explicit and prominent reference, possibly using the keywords I mentioned.

Thanks. 205.228.104.142 (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if "Plant sexuality" is the best term for it. "Sexual reproduction in plants" gets 4,360,000 regular Google hits, 675 Google Book hits, and 367 Google scholar hits. "Plant sexuality" gets 28,300 regular Google hits, 560 Google Book hits, and 266 Google scholar hits. Add in "sexual reproduction of plants", "sexual reproduction in flowering plants", "sexual reproduction of flowering plants", and "plant sexual reproduction", each of which has hundreds of Google Books and Scholar hits, and I'm convinced that the original naming of this article was idiosyncratic. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sexuality" and "Sexual reproduction" are different areas of study. One focus on mechanisms of reproduction and has to do mostly with anatomy, while the other focus on morphology and gender expression. Hardyplants (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove it, from the secondary scientific literature? And why don't we have an article on the mechanisms? It is by far a more common topic if Google is to be believed. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove it" prove what, that plant scientists study plant sexuality, your own Google search indicates that they do. "why don't we have an article on the mechanisms" - no one has made one, the info is in a number of different article though including Flower and Sexual reproduction. If you think we need a more detailed and specific one, I would help with it over the winter months. Hardyplants (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I say that the usage of the term "plant sexuality" predominates in the older literature, and is not used in a way that is distinguishable from "plant sexual reproduction". Are there professors who specialize in "plant sexuality"? There are only three(!) Google scholar hits with the term in the title of the article; this one talks about pollen tubes and megasporocytes, and one of the other two is actually titled "The evolution of plant sexual diversity". [1]

"plant sexual reproduction" has 22 Google Scholar title hits

"sexual reproduction in plants" has 11 Scholar title hits

"sexual reproduction in flowering plants" has 19

"sexual reproduction of flowering plants" has 3

So when you say "plant scientists study plant sexuality" I say what they are studying is the entirety of plant sexual reproduction, including the anatomy, and don't distinguish it the way you do. Then, since the term "sexual reproduction" has about two orders of magnitude more usage than "sexuality", the article should be moved away from the sexuality term under WP:COMMONNAMES. If the article is focusing too much on either "mechanisms of reproduction and with anatomy" and not enough on "morphology and gender expression" or vice versa, it needs to be edited to achieve a balance under WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think we need an article that covers how plant produce new plants by means of sex ( I do too), then go ahead a start one. The plant sexuality article focus on one area of plants sexual reproduction, which was vitally important in plant classification and is important in plant identification and plant breeding and plant evolution. Here is an interesting overview of the history of this topic [2] that might be useful to intergrate in the plant sexualty articel. Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to write an article making this out-dated 18th century distinction. Your source is talking historically; can't you see that? Abductive (reasoning) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually an active and growing area of research, now that genetic mechanisms of compatibility have been identified in recent decades. The distinction is not outdated; it's more relevant than ever. The only difference is in the additional modern terminology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a single source that says "the field of plant sexuality is different from the field of sexual reproduction in plants"?

1. In this book, The Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-century science no distinction is made (opens on the page on Linnaeus).
2. Different book, same story.
3. Ditto.
4. different book, same text as the book above.
5. [3]
6. and [4] can't see inside these books, but they are talking historically.
7. Two sentences apart in this book, no distinction made.
8. Another.
9. Another book, talking about cytoplasmic male sterility.
10. Here, a modern writer is sharply critical of Linnaeus's "gendering of plant sexuality" and supports my argument that this is an 18th century term.
11. Another.
12. Another.
13. Another, laps over onto page 4.
14. Another.
15. Another.
16. Another, talking, as many of the books I have linked, about Cameraius. As usual, it makes no distinction.
17. No distinction made in The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants By Jane S. Smith.

That's it for Google Books evidence.

I also point out that regular Google searching only has 513 initial results for "Plant sexuality" -wikipedia", 193 for "sexuality in plants" -wikipedia 219 "sexuality of plants" -wikipedia, but 691 for "sexual reproduction in plants" -wikipedia, 526 for "sexual reproduction in flowering plants" -wikipedia, 204 for "sexual reproduction of plants" -wikipedia, 99 for "sexual reproduction of flowering plants" -wikipedia, 414 for "plant sexual reproduction" -wikipedia and 149 for "plants sexual reproduction" -wikipedia. That's 925 for "sexuality" and 2093 for "sexual reproduction". Abductive (reasoning) 02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite a single source that says "bubonic plague is different from woodpeckers"? Some differences are so obvious to workers in the field that no explicit statement of difference is ever made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I find many books that use the terms interchangeably, and you respond with a comment that says "I know better than you, because I am a worker in the field." If this is such a different field, why are there no professors whose webpages make this distinction? If you are a worker in the field, name the professors who are experts in it so that I may look at their webpages and articles and see for myself. I can be convinced, but I suspect this is, at best, rather like the Division (botany)/Phylum "difference" that you plant guys hang onto. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please identify a single specific 20th or 21st century work that uses the terms interchangably. You've made the claim that the two terms are used interchangably, but have offered no supporting citations. This is not at all like the Phylum / Division distinction, which is a historical artifice of different names for exactly the same concept. Fosket's Plant Growth and Development (a major textbook) does not consider the two to be interchangeable (see pp. 25-26); there is first a section discussing differences in reproduction between plants and animals, then a section discussing difference in sexuality between the two groups. Longton and Schuster's summary article on "Reproductive Biology" of bryophytes (published 1983 in vol.1 of the New Manual of Bryology) compares reproduction in groups with different sexualities (monoicous and dioicous). They point out that the difference in sexuality leads to differences in reproduction. Such an argument is meaningless if the terms are synonymous and interchangeable. A telling quotation: "The control of sexuality in bryophytes differs from that in flowering plants as sex is expressed in the gametophyte rather than the sporophyte generation." Sexuality is explicitly tied to sexual expression, and not to reproductive biology in general, for which the article focusses on other issues, such as spore productivity, sporophyte production, and asexual reproduction.

All of the above books are recent and use the terms in the same context. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, theyt aren't. Most are straight reprintings of 19th century books or are very early 20th century books. I checked the original publication date, not the latest one, and the death date of the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First one; Londa Schiebinger very much alive. Second one; Ted Dadswell, seems to be publishing books now. Third and fourth ones, Schiebinger again. Fourth one; printed 1967, Fifth one printed 1985. Sixth one; Roger Lawrence Williams, born 1923. The last one on Luther Burbank was printed in 2009. What are you talking about? Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First what? I've looked at several of the identically labelled links above, and can't match this "first" with any possible candidate for "first" above. I've looked at many of the links above, and the random ones I picked are either (as I said) early works or are quoting people from early works. Please find and clerarly identify for me a quote from a modern science author. Note: Londa Schiebinger is a historian, so she is not doing any science at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am doing them in order, from the top down. I'll number them for you. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Plant sexuality refers to the arrangement and/or separation (physical or temporal) of "male" and "female" parts and/or stages, the interaction between the male and female stages, and associated sexual maturation. Plant reproduction refers to life cycle, meiosis/syngamy, propogation, and the dispersal of propagules or offspring. The two concepts are not at all the same for plants any more than they are for animals. The are countless examples of plant species that share the same method of reproduction, but whose sexuality is very distinctly different. The differences in sexuality can sometimes distinguish between two species in the same genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you make the definition of "method of reproduction" sufficiently broad; gametes meet, then all eukaryotic reproduction is the same. The plant sexuality article is saying that only the angiosperms matter. It cannot stand as the sole treatment in an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The embryo article emphasizes human embryos, almost to the exclusion of the embryos or plants and other animals. The muscle article discusses primarily human muscle, with little or no mention of invertebrates. So, how is this article different from all the other works in progress on Wikipedia? There is astart of an article on sexuality in plant gametophytes at monoicous, so the article you mention is not the only one around. It may end up splitting into a separate article on sexuality in flowering plants at some point, but right now there isn't enough information on the other divisions (as you've noted) to make that split viable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument to expand the article (and the others), not split. Splitting is only appropriate when an article grows very long or unwieldy. This article puts itself out there as the article on plants making baby plants via recombination, if we judge by the wikilinks and by the {{Botany}} template. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I still await your professors, dead or alive, who distinguished plant sexuality from plant sexual reproduction. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And I still await a single quote from you claiming that they are they same. The burden of proof is upon you. The null hypothesis when dealing with two different terms is to assume they are different, not to assume they are the same. You have linked to many works that use both phrases, but none of them claim identity of the terms. I have provided two clear references distinguishing them, which you have not addressed. And, as I say, you haven't shown that there is any problem except in your own undersatnding. No author above have claimed they are the same. Appearing near each other in the same work is not evidence of synonymy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is not on me. My argument is many-fold; first, that this distinction is damaging to the encyclopedia, since it is used as the main article on plant reproduction when it does not cover most of the information needed. (Confirming this is the fact that many articles and books talk about them close together, without feeling the need to say they are different. Q: Why is that? A: Because it isn't important.) Second, the continuum of gender is part of what makes plants interesting, but the article concentrates on terminology in the flowering plants. It doesn't even say why plants might engage in sex-switching, or why some species might be monoecious and some dioecious. (My fault, it does touch on the subject later.) No link to recombination exists in the article, no link to polyploidy, diploidy, or haploidy. The article incorrectly states that "As taller and more complex plants evolved, alternation of generations evolved..." after it talked about " liverworts and mosses", leading the reader to believe that liverworts and mosses don't have alternation of generations when in fact they are examplars of it. I suspect this is because of article WP:OWNership. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is the article must be remade to cover the whole story, or moved to Flowering plant sexuality or Sexuality in angiosperms or just made into Glossary of plant sexuality, because right now, once the article is a sham. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would argue that human sexuality is a synonymous field of study as human reproduction? Keeping in mind the first question, what terms would you expect to find covered in detail when talking about plant reproduction verses sexuality? Hardyplants (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the point I am making. I am not arguing to merge an article on Sexual reproduction in plants into Plant sexuality or vice versa, but that the plant sexuality article is linked from Sexual reproduction#Plants as the "main article." Therefore people are going there for a fuller treatment. Since it is the only article available, it must be remade into the main article, starting with the name change. As for the human sexuality =/= human reproduction argument, my reading of the books above shows that Wikipedia could support an article on human interpretations of plant sexuality, from a historical/sociological perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I run across issues with flower sexuality every week, it is a common inclusion in botanical works on flora and in plant descriptions. If you want to compose an article on "plant sexuality, from a historical/sociological perspective" there might be enough information for an interesting article...As I asked about, if you want to start a page on sexual reproduction of plants, then I would help. It makes no sense to kill or butcher an article on topic "x" because we do not have an article on topic "m". After giving the issue a few days of thought, we should have an article on "Plant reproduction" that summarizes both sexual and nonsexual reproduction in plants, since much of this information is already scattered in other articles, see sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction, flower, seed, pollen, pollination and a number of others. Hardyplants (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we create the new article, you know that the sexuality article will be bypassed by a lot of readers forevermore? Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Biosafety of plant....

• http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+plant+biosafety&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.219.241 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

So there are 350,000 species of plants and there are 287,655 species of plants. Which is it? --Leodmacleod (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)