This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page should have a box on the side listing the different Phyla like the animal page does. -- Savant13 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Distribution is all about plants interaction with humankind, culture and fauna... It's an important theme about plants... So... Don't feel you are correcting anything by taking it out of the page... It's a proper way to further one's understanding of them in relation to us seeing what their distribution is.
I've seen other paes on this kind of matter adress the information on distribution themselves... An address for distribution itelf might exist separately, mentioning disribution of plants and other life which interacts with it...
Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification
Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat.
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) -- mav
Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular?
Some stuff moved from botany.
This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany
The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted).
??Will you accept Algae as plants" 81.144.158.195 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why there is the section about fungi since they form the clade Opisthokonta with animals. Fungi being distant relatives of plants just having a section about plants in the article Animal to inform that plants are not animals. AquamarineOnion 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)
Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [1]. AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms.
What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a brief introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure.
If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- Josh
I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there isn't a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- Josh
Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Added ==Plants as fossils== Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.
Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Portions of this text are :
"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.
Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are:
It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. Josh 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for rotifers and Rotifera - one is simply a formal version of the other.
I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant embryophytes and things similar to them, and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary it should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it.
Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support.
That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and not just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here.
Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. Josh 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? Josh 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate.
So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept.
Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either complex multicellular phototrophs, green plants or embryophytes. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria don't have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. Josh 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry! I simply meant multicellular phototrophs, i.e. including seaweeds - the definition sensu Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like Chlamydomonas. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, some of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). Josh 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why was a request for help regarding how to remove a redirect to this page removed by reverting to a previous state?
Sorry, I reverted a typo you made and missed the question you asked at the bottom. My bad. Here is your questions again:
Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help... Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
Just as a notice, I am currently working on a full-scale review of plant defenses to herbivory as an additional section to this page that will include an overview of peer-reviewed scientific research in plant defense, historical and present theory, and current studies. I expect to have a draft of the page ready by the beginning of February, and I look forward to members of the national and international community filling in the gaps I may leave out.-- Franciepants18 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Are plants sentient and have concious existence do they know that they and other things exist unlike for example a pen-Taracka
I remember when I was studying mathematics about the beneficial effects that fractals had on the human mind, as well as a study referenced at one point. Sadly, I don't remember the name or whereabouts of said study, and I don't have access to a scholarly database. I thought I might put the idea out, however, on the positive effects of plants in psychology and that such. Ecopirate 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged part of the Importance section with the Ecological relationships section, then edited and expanded it. The sections overlapped on photosynthesis. The semi-parastic example was changed from eyebright to mistletoe because the eyebright wiki page is a tiny stub. The mistletoe wiki page is a much more informative page. The remainder of the Importance section was expanded and subheadings added. Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I need information about plants & their nutrients...like How do plants travel through a plant? Where do they come from? where do they go? How does the sun help the plant to grow? Why does a plant need sugar to grow? this are my questions a being looking into every single page about plants & i can't find the answers...thanks...
What project maintains this article? Where can i find on Wikipedia a good diagram about the general plant structure that will show me what the major plant's parts are and what their spacial relationship? -- Boris 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
at school we are doing a bush study and we need to find what a plant isi have searched for an hour over the internet but i cant find any infomation can you please help me
After continuous vandalism and nonsense edits over the last 24 hours, I've reverted to the last version that I'm pretty sure was unvandalized, yesterday's version by Eskog. As far as I can tell I'm not deleting any valid edits. MrDarwin 21:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
How many plant's have been found on 2006?
Also when you are doing a project on plants then what should we chose to do 204.210.255.18 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Frank
I gather that the "Internal Distribution" section refers to allocation, but what does the "External Distribution" refer to? Guettarda 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be a list of different plant systems,and their uses-- Tingpeng19:01 22 September 2007
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)
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)
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is a serious error. Sentimentality and personal opinion are no reasons for such a lengthy description of green algae. Green algae are classified within the Kingdom Protoctista. I am inclined to delete the entire section, and also the section on fungi. Le chien manquee ( talk) 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
What's the evolutionary history of plants? How far back can we trace it? Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
1 2 3 4 5 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quietmartialartist 20:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
I've changed to plants...what plants should I use?
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 ( talk) 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
Let the fun begin! -- Rkitko ( talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Any better? -- Rkitko ( talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am inclined to delete this section - the article previously mentions the historical error that placed fungi in the Plantae. Therefore no description of fungi is merited here. Le chien manquee ( talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Fungi doesn't belong in this section. It is in a totally different kingdom. -- Drew2794 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Plants wither not only when they lose water through evaporation but also when they are surrounded by an aqueous solution of common salt, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, sugar or other substance, if the solution is of higher osmotic pressure, whereas they do not wilt if the osmotic pressure is lower. (pdf)
Please include the above information in the article. Anwar ( talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be precious little here on plant reproduction. Evercat ( talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with this page is this: confusion concerning the definition of the terms "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae".
These terms have been used so many different ways over the years, that "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" have little useful technical meaning. Here's some history.
1) At one time we used to classify all organisms as being either plants or animals (The two kingdom system). Plants included Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi, Algae, Bryophytes, vascular plants, slime moulds, and perhaps a few other groups.
2) When it was recognized that Prokaryotes were a fundamentally distinct group, the original concept of "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" was discarded. In the new three kingdom system, the Bacteria and Archaea were transferred to the new Kingdom Monera. This considerably narrowed our concept of plants.
3) It was eventually recognised that the three kingdom system was also flawed. A five kingdom system was introduced, with a new Kingdom Fungi, and a Kingdom Protista (or Proctoctista). In this system, the concept of "plants" and "Kingdom Plantae" was further narrowed, and limited to include only bryophytes and vascular plants. All eukaryotic algae were transferred to the Kingdom Protista. The Protista however was always an ill-defined assemblage of organisms - consisting of a grab-bag of organisms that didn't fit conveniently into the other kingdoms.
4) The flaws in this system became especially apparent with the advent of modern, detailed molecular phylogenetic studies. Baldauf et al. (2003: Science 300: 1703-1706) recognised that the eukaryotes consisted of a series of different clades (e.g., Opisthokonts, Heterokonts, etc). These clades have little correspondence to our old system of five Kingdoms. It is forcing a major rethink of our kingdom system - and the dust hasn't settled. One of Baldauf et al.'s clades was labelled "Plants". It comprised the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. Confused??
5) This assemblage of organisms has now been renamed Archaeplastida. The major subdivisions of the Archaeplastida are the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, and Viridiplantae. The Viridiplantae comprise the Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. The term Embryophytes can be used to collectively and unambiguously to refer to the bryophyte and vascular plant collective.
So my suggestion - rename this page as "Viridiplantae" (or perhaps move it to Viridiplantae). The content best fits with this concept. Introduce a new "Plant" page that explains this history. It can serve as a source for disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.194.170 ( talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A further note - the concept of plant, as used by people on the street, fits best with Embryophyte ( bryophytes and vascular plants). This concept excludes all green algae. So - the concept of plant used in this article doesn't correspond to everyday use.
I have started a Plant (botanical) article which might provide a convenient means for clarifying this mess.
I agree with the above stated comment, but do not agree with creating a "content fork" or placing the taxonomic information on the bottom. There should be a balance between the 'technical' terms and generic information. There are many topics, i.e. turgur pressure, that could be mentioned and treated with some level of detail with further detail in the link. The topic is plant and what defines a plant. The article does have room for improvement, particularly to flow. There are sections which deviate too far from the topic at hand and have the feel of rambling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.63.205 ( talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 agree that the sections could be merged. Etineskid ( talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
how we know that the green plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.155.2 ( talk) 07:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-- 222.64.219.241 ( talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Umm, yes I meant UCMP (don't know why I put Jepson, except maybe that they are next to each other) and yes the systematics is rather out of date, which is a shame as it is a frequently visited website. As for the names of paraphyletic groups, I do advocate their elimination, for the most part, but the fact is they exist in the literature and in current usage, and WP is not a place to promote one's personal preferences. (I think the debate discussed by Farris (1979 Systematic Zoology 28:483-519) is over and phylogenetic nomenclature has prevailed, but old usages persist. I concede that some paraphyletic groups are inevitable in scientific nomenclature, but these should still be defined by monophyletic groups within the paraphyletic group, and these terms should be distinguished in some way from monophyletic groups.)
Your point about names vs. topics is unclear to me. The pteridophyte page is about what is meant by the name pteridophyte. Names determine how we conceive of the biology. It seems to me (and, in my opinion, rather regrettably) that the term pteridophyte is still used in the literature (especially in the floristics literature) to mean vascular plants except seed plants. My sense though is that this is becoming less common, and I think it is possible to find cases of other uses of that term, or at least references to its obsolescence. What I am advocating for the pteridophyte page is that the term be defined as historical and potentially problematic (as in the Smith et al. paper), not merely and blandly as "not a monophyletic group". At least the potential confusion with pteridophyta should be mentioned. I am not advocating phylogenetic activism, but, as a tertiary source, WP should be exhaustive and defining pteridophyte as it is currently defined seems to me to be taking a position. Michaplot ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I was rather hoping to find an fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of plant groups listed, along the lines of Grzimek's for animals. Is there something like that? — kwami ( talk) 05:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.84.3 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) hey guys plants r cool like dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.222.130 ( talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote in the last edit comment: these long stretches of text in the beginning of the article are NOT about plants, pls motivate why it should be here. Each Wikipedia article should be limited to the subject that is identified by its title. There can also be something about how these things relate to other phenomena. Botany relates historically to fungi, plants ... In the systematic sense, plants do not relate to fungi at all. Ecologically there are interesting relations, for example mycorhiza. A reader surfing to the article Plant is expected to want information about plants, not about unrelated organisms, especially not in the beginning of the article. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. They may not be Plantae, but fungi arguably still are plants. I agree that the focus of the article needs to follow the biological definition of 'plant', but the popular definition has its place too. — kwami ( talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Merging Viridiplantae into this article is being discussed at Talk:Viridiplantae#Merge with Plant?. The discussion is also concerned with how this article should be organized. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am engaged in re-writing some parts of this article, primarily to deal with the seriously inconsistent mixing of traditional and modern classifications/names. Thus in parts of this version of the article, names like "Chlorophyta", "Streptophyta" and "Charophyta" were used in their traditional paraphyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for all green algae, i.e. the clade Viridiplantae minus the clade Embryophyta), whereas in other parts they were used in their modern monophyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for one of the two clades making up the Viridiplantae). A particular problem, as I saw it, was that the text often used the traditional paraphyletic sense for a term but its wikilink led to an article which used the modern sense.
In the early stages of re-writing, there will be some under-referencing, which I intend to correct, but any assistance will be very welcome! Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
One problem (or two!) is what is mean by the "divisions" Chlorophyta and Charophyta in the taxobox. No references are given, and it's no use following the wikilinks because these explain alternative definitions. I suspect that these are meant to be Chlorophyta = all green algae except Charophyta and Embryophyta; Charophyta = stoneworts (+ some other streptophyte algae?) + land plants. This is quite inconsistent with Green_algae#Classification. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Division Chlorophyta
Division Charophyta
clade Embryophyta (10 extant Divisions) |
I've never liked this bit from Evolutionary history of plants, which is currently repeated in this article:
The evolution of plants has resulted in increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While the groups which appeared earlier continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they evolved, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures.
If "each new grade of organisation" has become more successful than its predecessors, why are there more species of moss than of any of the more "advanced" groups except flowering plants? If species diversity is a measure of evolutionary success (and it seems as good a measure to me as any other) then the "bryophyte" grade as a whole is much more successful than any other land plants except flowering plants. This is not what you would deduce from the quote above. I'll leave this note here for a few days, because the paragraph has been around for a while, but then unless there are reasoned objections, I'm going to change it, both here and at Evolutionary history of plants. The notion of "evolution as inevitable progress" is far too seductive, and needs to be tackled at every opportunity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The lede currently includes the list: "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[tree]]s, [[Flowering plant|flowers]], [[herb]]s, [[Shrub|bushes]], [[grass]]es, [[vine]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]].". This mixes classification by external forms and scientific classification. For instance, "Flowering plant" includes most, but not all, trees, as well as herbs, grasses, and vines. I suggest the sentence be changed to something like "[[flowering plants]], [[gymnosperm]]s (conifers and cycads), [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]]." -- Donald Albury 13:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Plants are highly distributed in tropical areas than the other areas in the planet Earth. Angiosperms are mainly distributed and highly developed in tropical areas. Gymnosperms (mainly conifers ) are found in cool areas like Siberia and Canada. The most diversified ecosystems are found in tropical rainforest areas. Therefore plants' diversification affects plants' distribution.
Kiruthikane ( talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As a gardener (of flowers, vegetables, and fruit) I find Wikipedia invaluable. But the format currently adopted does not usually refer to diseases, pests, and methods of propagation (and what to do about the first two). Of course one can get something on the internet about all this. But for commonly grown plants a standard format which included these as separate sections would be very useful. -- Markd999 ( talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Understanding horticulture
Horticulture is a term that evokes images of plants, gardening, and people working in the horticultural industries.[5] For the public, and policy makers, the term is not completely understood nor is its impact on human activities been fully appreciated.[5] Horticulture impacts widely on human activities, more than its popular understanding as merely "gardening" would indicate. It needs to be recognised as a matrix of inter-relating areas that overlap, with complex inter-relationships. A wider and more accurate definition will communicate effectively the importance of plants, their cultivation and their use for sustainable human existence. The popular "gardening activity" sense fails to convey the important role that horticulture plays in the lives of individuals, communities and human societies as a whole. Describing its impact on the physiological, psychological and social activities of people is key to expanding our understanding; however "the cultivation of a garden, orchard, or nursery" and "the cultivation of flowers, fruits, vegetables, or ornamental plants" as well as "the science and art of cultivating such plants" [6] will suffice to sketch the outline of a short description. Relf (1992)[7] expanded the traditional understanding of horticulture beyond “garden” cultivation. Tukey (1962)[8] gave an overview of those involved in the field of horticulture, in stating that there are those who are concerned with the science or biological side, those concerned with the business side and finally those who are concerned with the home or art side, who enjoy plants simply for the satisfaction they get from them. Primarily it is an art, but it is intimately connected with science at every point.[9] Relf highlighted the fact that, in limiting the definition of horticulture severely limits an understanding of what horticulture means in terms of human well-being.[10] Relf provided a comprehensive definition of horticulture as; the art and science of plants resulting in the development of minds and emotions of individuals, the enrichment and health of communities, and the integration of the “garden” in the breadth of modern civilisation.[7] In addition, Halfacre and Barden (1979),[11] Janick and Goldman (2003).[12] further extended the scope of horticulture when they agreed that the origins of horticulture are intimately associated with the history of humanity and that horticulture encompasses all life and bridges the gap between science, art and human beings. This broader vision of horticulture embraces plants, including the multitude of products and activities (oxygen, food, medicine, clothing, shelter, celebration or remembrance) essential for human survival; and people, whose active and passive involvement with “the garden” brings about benefits to them as individuals and to the communities and cultures they encompass (Relf, 2002;[7] Relf and Lohr, 2003 [13]).
It can be concluded that horticulture happens when people are in intimate, intensive contact with plants. It is the interface between people and plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.40.112 ( talk) 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My contribution no longer requires Microsoft Silverlight. T.M.Jones ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"HTML5 PivotViewer - Error loading CXML Collection - URL : http://www.herbarium2.lsu.edu/aca/C747.cxml - Status : 0 Details : Pivot Viewer cannot continue until this problem is resolved"from http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/aca/ which I presume is the link you are referring to, from your previous addition to Botany. Feel free to reactivate the request if the content becomes accessible. Thanks. Begoon talk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Requesting that this line: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
be changed to this: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, carbon dioxide, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
The concentration of carbon dioxide is vital for and directly related to plant growth; the greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the faster the growth until other factors such as plant type and other nutrients' availability limit it. Thus, carbon dioxide should be included in the list of environmental factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 ( talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done This seems a good point, so I have made the edit. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Would one of the images located here or here be useful for illustrating worldwide plant distribution? Praemonitus ( talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So in the side menu to the right of the page, under the heading of "Land plants" it is listed this way:
Land plants (embryophytes)
Non-vascular land plants (bryophytes)
•Marchantiophyta—liverworts •Anthocerotophyta—hornworts •Bryophyta—mosses •†Horneophytopsida
Vascular plants (tracheophytes)
•†Rhyniophyta—rhyniophytes •†Zosterophyllophyta—zosterophylls •Lycopodiophyta—clubmosses •†Trimerophytophyta—trimerophytes •Pteridophyta—ferns and horsetails •†Progymnospermophyta
Seed plants (spermatophytes)
•†Pteridospermatophyta—seed ferns •Pinophyta—conifers •Cycadophyta—cycads •Ginkgophyta—ginkgo •Gnetophyta—gnetae •Magnoliophyta—flowering plants
So... seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.145.148 ( talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
After the text,
A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae, after Kenrick and Crane,[24] is as follows, with modification to the Pteridophyta from Smith et al.
at the bottom of the article, the following table is showing me gibberish with lots of 'expansion depth exceeded' messages.
Seen In Chromium browser (v 31.0.1650.63 )
87.127.79.193 ( talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text in section 1.3 of the article, "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.", is not cited.
Would somebody please cite it for me? The corrected text would be as follows: "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.
citation needed".
Thank you.
99.120.10.54 (
talk)
22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
the opening sentance proclaims that "Plants are one of the two groups into which all living things are traditionally divided; the other is animals". This is totally wrong, there are infat several more divisions of life such as fungi, bacteria, ect. I'm amazed that such an important article could be written so poorly. And to be locked on top of it... 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I changed "are" to "have been". I hope this conveys that the two kingdom system has been superseded in scholarly discussion, while allowing for continued informal usage (as is mentioned later in that section). -- Donald Albury 12:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And since I edited over full protection, I'll revert myself if there is no consensus here to accept that edit. -- Donald Albury 12:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is very confusing – a product of the many competing visions of what a plant is. Some editors, and the opening sentence, have tried to force the article to address one modern interpretation of the word plant (i.e., the Viridaeplantae), but the article's focus needs to emphasize that the meaning of the term plant has evolved with the biological classification system. It is also very clear that different people now use the word plant to mean quite different things. That needs to be clearly stated, and the current and historical diversity of usage needs to be emphasized in the article. In essence the heart of article should be about disambiguation... For more precise groupings readers should be referred to the separate articles on Archaeplastida, Viridiplantae, and Embryophyta. The current article is an incoherent mess! ––(signature added) 09:04, 21 April 2015 Lesfreck
Maybe it's just me, but this is how the phylogenetic tree in the #Evolution section looks like for me. Can someone who is able to do that, fix it please? :) Thx. -- Thogo 09:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It says "Early Cambrian" but it shows the Middle Cambrian what's sup with that and please someone please fix that. — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The photosynthesis equation is not balanced. Change "O2" to "6O2". 67.70.42.104 ( talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
67.70.42.104 ( talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people refer to certain types of algae as a plant and many scientists refer to single celled plants.
If that is the case, is the beginning sentence of plants being multi-cellular only an accurate one? Chris Fletcher ( talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
members of that clade are multicellular. Plantsurfer 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a doctorate in biophysics, and thus I am not an "layperson", yet I have no idea what is meant by " Plants are also characterized by ... modular ... growth," even after reading the article it links to. The word "modular" does not appear in the linked article. I have "Plant Life" from Oxford Unifersity Press on my desk and it does not index "modular". Can some botanist please elucidate for the educated layperson, the meaning of "modular growth"? Thanks, Nick Beeson ( talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 ( talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand there's an issue around the paraphyly of the green algae. However, this article is about a (much) larger group, the plants as a whole, and the article's title is a common English name, so readers from school age upwards can reasonably expect at least the lead section to be simple and welcoming. I suggest, therefore, that we should not be launching into discussions of whether a particular group of plants happens to be paraphyletic - the job of the lead section is to give an overview of the plants as a whole, by summarizing the article as a whole. Taxonomic intricacies are not the priority there, specially in the first paragraph. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the beginning of the article decisively declares that "Plant" is synonymous with Viridiplantae. This unnecessarily narrows the scope of the article to only one technical definition from one discipline (biology). Even from a biological standpoint, this is contradicted immediately when the actual ambiguity of the term is unfolded under Definition. If the scope of this article is supposed to be limited to Viridiplantae, why is there also a Viridiplantae article? Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)
However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.
I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page should have a box on the side listing the different Phyla like the animal page does. -- Savant13 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Distribution is all about plants interaction with humankind, culture and fauna... It's an important theme about plants... So... Don't feel you are correcting anything by taking it out of the page... It's a proper way to further one's understanding of them in relation to us seeing what their distribution is.
I've seen other paes on this kind of matter adress the information on distribution themselves... An address for distribution itelf might exist separately, mentioning disribution of plants and other life which interacts with it...
Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification
Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat.
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) -- mav
Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular?
Some stuff moved from botany.
This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany
The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted).
??Will you accept Algae as plants" 81.144.158.195 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why there is the section about fungi since they form the clade Opisthokonta with animals. Fungi being distant relatives of plants just having a section about plants in the article Animal to inform that plants are not animals. AquamarineOnion 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)
Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [1]. AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms.
What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a brief introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure.
If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- Josh
I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there isn't a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- Josh
Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Added ==Plants as fossils== Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.
Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Portions of this text are :
"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.
Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are:
It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. Josh 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for rotifers and Rotifera - one is simply a formal version of the other.
I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant embryophytes and things similar to them, and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary it should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it.
Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support.
That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and not just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here.
Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. Josh 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? Josh 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate.
So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept.
Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either complex multicellular phototrophs, green plants or embryophytes. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria don't have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. Josh 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry! I simply meant multicellular phototrophs, i.e. including seaweeds - the definition sensu Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like Chlamydomonas. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, some of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). Josh 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why was a request for help regarding how to remove a redirect to this page removed by reverting to a previous state?
Sorry, I reverted a typo you made and missed the question you asked at the bottom. My bad. Here is your questions again:
Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help... Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
Just as a notice, I am currently working on a full-scale review of plant defenses to herbivory as an additional section to this page that will include an overview of peer-reviewed scientific research in plant defense, historical and present theory, and current studies. I expect to have a draft of the page ready by the beginning of February, and I look forward to members of the national and international community filling in the gaps I may leave out.-- Franciepants18 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Are plants sentient and have concious existence do they know that they and other things exist unlike for example a pen-Taracka
I remember when I was studying mathematics about the beneficial effects that fractals had on the human mind, as well as a study referenced at one point. Sadly, I don't remember the name or whereabouts of said study, and I don't have access to a scholarly database. I thought I might put the idea out, however, on the positive effects of plants in psychology and that such. Ecopirate 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged part of the Importance section with the Ecological relationships section, then edited and expanded it. The sections overlapped on photosynthesis. The semi-parastic example was changed from eyebright to mistletoe because the eyebright wiki page is a tiny stub. The mistletoe wiki page is a much more informative page. The remainder of the Importance section was expanded and subheadings added. Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I need information about plants & their nutrients...like How do plants travel through a plant? Where do they come from? where do they go? How does the sun help the plant to grow? Why does a plant need sugar to grow? this are my questions a being looking into every single page about plants & i can't find the answers...thanks...
What project maintains this article? Where can i find on Wikipedia a good diagram about the general plant structure that will show me what the major plant's parts are and what their spacial relationship? -- Boris 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
at school we are doing a bush study and we need to find what a plant isi have searched for an hour over the internet but i cant find any infomation can you please help me
After continuous vandalism and nonsense edits over the last 24 hours, I've reverted to the last version that I'm pretty sure was unvandalized, yesterday's version by Eskog. As far as I can tell I'm not deleting any valid edits. MrDarwin 21:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
How many plant's have been found on 2006?
Also when you are doing a project on plants then what should we chose to do 204.210.255.18 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Frank
I gather that the "Internal Distribution" section refers to allocation, but what does the "External Distribution" refer to? Guettarda 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be a list of different plant systems,and their uses-- Tingpeng19:01 22 September 2007
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)
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)
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is a serious error. Sentimentality and personal opinion are no reasons for such a lengthy description of green algae. Green algae are classified within the Kingdom Protoctista. I am inclined to delete the entire section, and also the section on fungi. Le chien manquee ( talk) 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
What's the evolutionary history of plants? How far back can we trace it? Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
1 2 3 4 5 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quietmartialartist 20:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
I've changed to plants...what plants should I use?
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 ( talk) 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
Let the fun begin! -- Rkitko ( talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Any better? -- Rkitko ( talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am inclined to delete this section - the article previously mentions the historical error that placed fungi in the Plantae. Therefore no description of fungi is merited here. Le chien manquee ( talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Fungi doesn't belong in this section. It is in a totally different kingdom. -- Drew2794 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Plants wither not only when they lose water through evaporation but also when they are surrounded by an aqueous solution of common salt, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, sugar or other substance, if the solution is of higher osmotic pressure, whereas they do not wilt if the osmotic pressure is lower. (pdf)
Please include the above information in the article. Anwar ( talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be precious little here on plant reproduction. Evercat ( talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with this page is this: confusion concerning the definition of the terms "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae".
These terms have been used so many different ways over the years, that "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" have little useful technical meaning. Here's some history.
1) At one time we used to classify all organisms as being either plants or animals (The two kingdom system). Plants included Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi, Algae, Bryophytes, vascular plants, slime moulds, and perhaps a few other groups.
2) When it was recognized that Prokaryotes were a fundamentally distinct group, the original concept of "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" was discarded. In the new three kingdom system, the Bacteria and Archaea were transferred to the new Kingdom Monera. This considerably narrowed our concept of plants.
3) It was eventually recognised that the three kingdom system was also flawed. A five kingdom system was introduced, with a new Kingdom Fungi, and a Kingdom Protista (or Proctoctista). In this system, the concept of "plants" and "Kingdom Plantae" was further narrowed, and limited to include only bryophytes and vascular plants. All eukaryotic algae were transferred to the Kingdom Protista. The Protista however was always an ill-defined assemblage of organisms - consisting of a grab-bag of organisms that didn't fit conveniently into the other kingdoms.
4) The flaws in this system became especially apparent with the advent of modern, detailed molecular phylogenetic studies. Baldauf et al. (2003: Science 300: 1703-1706) recognised that the eukaryotes consisted of a series of different clades (e.g., Opisthokonts, Heterokonts, etc). These clades have little correspondence to our old system of five Kingdoms. It is forcing a major rethink of our kingdom system - and the dust hasn't settled. One of Baldauf et al.'s clades was labelled "Plants". It comprised the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. Confused??
5) This assemblage of organisms has now been renamed Archaeplastida. The major subdivisions of the Archaeplastida are the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, and Viridiplantae. The Viridiplantae comprise the Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants. The term Embryophytes can be used to collectively and unambiguously to refer to the bryophyte and vascular plant collective.
So my suggestion - rename this page as "Viridiplantae" (or perhaps move it to Viridiplantae). The content best fits with this concept. Introduce a new "Plant" page that explains this history. It can serve as a source for disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.194.170 ( talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A further note - the concept of plant, as used by people on the street, fits best with Embryophyte ( bryophytes and vascular plants). This concept excludes all green algae. So - the concept of plant used in this article doesn't correspond to everyday use.
I have started a Plant (botanical) article which might provide a convenient means for clarifying this mess.
I agree with the above stated comment, but do not agree with creating a "content fork" or placing the taxonomic information on the bottom. There should be a balance between the 'technical' terms and generic information. There are many topics, i.e. turgur pressure, that could be mentioned and treated with some level of detail with further detail in the link. The topic is plant and what defines a plant. The article does have room for improvement, particularly to flow. There are sections which deviate too far from the topic at hand and have the feel of rambling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.63.205 ( talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 agree that the sections could be merged. Etineskid ( talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
how we know that the green plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.155.2 ( talk) 07:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-- 222.64.219.241 ( talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Umm, yes I meant UCMP (don't know why I put Jepson, except maybe that they are next to each other) and yes the systematics is rather out of date, which is a shame as it is a frequently visited website. As for the names of paraphyletic groups, I do advocate their elimination, for the most part, but the fact is they exist in the literature and in current usage, and WP is not a place to promote one's personal preferences. (I think the debate discussed by Farris (1979 Systematic Zoology 28:483-519) is over and phylogenetic nomenclature has prevailed, but old usages persist. I concede that some paraphyletic groups are inevitable in scientific nomenclature, but these should still be defined by monophyletic groups within the paraphyletic group, and these terms should be distinguished in some way from monophyletic groups.)
Your point about names vs. topics is unclear to me. The pteridophyte page is about what is meant by the name pteridophyte. Names determine how we conceive of the biology. It seems to me (and, in my opinion, rather regrettably) that the term pteridophyte is still used in the literature (especially in the floristics literature) to mean vascular plants except seed plants. My sense though is that this is becoming less common, and I think it is possible to find cases of other uses of that term, or at least references to its obsolescence. What I am advocating for the pteridophyte page is that the term be defined as historical and potentially problematic (as in the Smith et al. paper), not merely and blandly as "not a monophyletic group". At least the potential confusion with pteridophyta should be mentioned. I am not advocating phylogenetic activism, but, as a tertiary source, WP should be exhaustive and defining pteridophyte as it is currently defined seems to me to be taking a position. Michaplot ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I was rather hoping to find an fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of plant groups listed, along the lines of Grzimek's for animals. Is there something like that? — kwami ( talk) 05:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.84.3 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) hey guys plants r cool like dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.222.130 ( talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote in the last edit comment: these long stretches of text in the beginning of the article are NOT about plants, pls motivate why it should be here. Each Wikipedia article should be limited to the subject that is identified by its title. There can also be something about how these things relate to other phenomena. Botany relates historically to fungi, plants ... In the systematic sense, plants do not relate to fungi at all. Ecologically there are interesting relations, for example mycorhiza. A reader surfing to the article Plant is expected to want information about plants, not about unrelated organisms, especially not in the beginning of the article. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. They may not be Plantae, but fungi arguably still are plants. I agree that the focus of the article needs to follow the biological definition of 'plant', but the popular definition has its place too. — kwami ( talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Merging Viridiplantae into this article is being discussed at Talk:Viridiplantae#Merge with Plant?. The discussion is also concerned with how this article should be organized. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am engaged in re-writing some parts of this article, primarily to deal with the seriously inconsistent mixing of traditional and modern classifications/names. Thus in parts of this version of the article, names like "Chlorophyta", "Streptophyta" and "Charophyta" were used in their traditional paraphyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for all green algae, i.e. the clade Viridiplantae minus the clade Embryophyta), whereas in other parts they were used in their modern monophyletic senses (e.g. "Chlorophyta" for one of the two clades making up the Viridiplantae). A particular problem, as I saw it, was that the text often used the traditional paraphyletic sense for a term but its wikilink led to an article which used the modern sense.
In the early stages of re-writing, there will be some under-referencing, which I intend to correct, but any assistance will be very welcome! Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
One problem (or two!) is what is mean by the "divisions" Chlorophyta and Charophyta in the taxobox. No references are given, and it's no use following the wikilinks because these explain alternative definitions. I suspect that these are meant to be Chlorophyta = all green algae except Charophyta and Embryophyta; Charophyta = stoneworts (+ some other streptophyte algae?) + land plants. This is quite inconsistent with Green_algae#Classification. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Division Chlorophyta
Division Charophyta
clade Embryophyta (10 extant Divisions) |
I've never liked this bit from Evolutionary history of plants, which is currently repeated in this article:
The evolution of plants has resulted in increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While the groups which appeared earlier continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they evolved, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures.
If "each new grade of organisation" has become more successful than its predecessors, why are there more species of moss than of any of the more "advanced" groups except flowering plants? If species diversity is a measure of evolutionary success (and it seems as good a measure to me as any other) then the "bryophyte" grade as a whole is much more successful than any other land plants except flowering plants. This is not what you would deduce from the quote above. I'll leave this note here for a few days, because the paragraph has been around for a while, but then unless there are reasoned objections, I'm going to change it, both here and at Evolutionary history of plants. The notion of "evolution as inevitable progress" is far too seductive, and needs to be tackled at every opportunity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The lede currently includes the list: "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[tree]]s, [[Flowering plant|flowers]], [[herb]]s, [[Shrub|bushes]], [[grass]]es, [[vine]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]].". This mixes classification by external forms and scientific classification. For instance, "Flowering plant" includes most, but not all, trees, as well as herbs, grasses, and vines. I suggest the sentence be changed to something like "[[flowering plants]], [[gymnosperm]]s (conifers and cycads), [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]]." -- Donald Albury 13:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Plants are highly distributed in tropical areas than the other areas in the planet Earth. Angiosperms are mainly distributed and highly developed in tropical areas. Gymnosperms (mainly conifers ) are found in cool areas like Siberia and Canada. The most diversified ecosystems are found in tropical rainforest areas. Therefore plants' diversification affects plants' distribution.
Kiruthikane ( talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As a gardener (of flowers, vegetables, and fruit) I find Wikipedia invaluable. But the format currently adopted does not usually refer to diseases, pests, and methods of propagation (and what to do about the first two). Of course one can get something on the internet about all this. But for commonly grown plants a standard format which included these as separate sections would be very useful. -- Markd999 ( talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Understanding horticulture
Horticulture is a term that evokes images of plants, gardening, and people working in the horticultural industries.[5] For the public, and policy makers, the term is not completely understood nor is its impact on human activities been fully appreciated.[5] Horticulture impacts widely on human activities, more than its popular understanding as merely "gardening" would indicate. It needs to be recognised as a matrix of inter-relating areas that overlap, with complex inter-relationships. A wider and more accurate definition will communicate effectively the importance of plants, their cultivation and their use for sustainable human existence. The popular "gardening activity" sense fails to convey the important role that horticulture plays in the lives of individuals, communities and human societies as a whole. Describing its impact on the physiological, psychological and social activities of people is key to expanding our understanding; however "the cultivation of a garden, orchard, or nursery" and "the cultivation of flowers, fruits, vegetables, or ornamental plants" as well as "the science and art of cultivating such plants" [6] will suffice to sketch the outline of a short description. Relf (1992)[7] expanded the traditional understanding of horticulture beyond “garden” cultivation. Tukey (1962)[8] gave an overview of those involved in the field of horticulture, in stating that there are those who are concerned with the science or biological side, those concerned with the business side and finally those who are concerned with the home or art side, who enjoy plants simply for the satisfaction they get from them. Primarily it is an art, but it is intimately connected with science at every point.[9] Relf highlighted the fact that, in limiting the definition of horticulture severely limits an understanding of what horticulture means in terms of human well-being.[10] Relf provided a comprehensive definition of horticulture as; the art and science of plants resulting in the development of minds and emotions of individuals, the enrichment and health of communities, and the integration of the “garden” in the breadth of modern civilisation.[7] In addition, Halfacre and Barden (1979),[11] Janick and Goldman (2003).[12] further extended the scope of horticulture when they agreed that the origins of horticulture are intimately associated with the history of humanity and that horticulture encompasses all life and bridges the gap between science, art and human beings. This broader vision of horticulture embraces plants, including the multitude of products and activities (oxygen, food, medicine, clothing, shelter, celebration or remembrance) essential for human survival; and people, whose active and passive involvement with “the garden” brings about benefits to them as individuals and to the communities and cultures they encompass (Relf, 2002;[7] Relf and Lohr, 2003 [13]).
It can be concluded that horticulture happens when people are in intimate, intensive contact with plants. It is the interface between people and plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.40.112 ( talk) 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My contribution no longer requires Microsoft Silverlight. T.M.Jones ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"HTML5 PivotViewer - Error loading CXML Collection - URL : http://www.herbarium2.lsu.edu/aca/C747.cxml - Status : 0 Details : Pivot Viewer cannot continue until this problem is resolved"from http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/aca/ which I presume is the link you are referring to, from your previous addition to Botany. Feel free to reactivate the request if the content becomes accessible. Thanks. Begoon talk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Requesting that this line: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
be changed to this: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, carbon dioxide, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
The concentration of carbon dioxide is vital for and directly related to plant growth; the greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the faster the growth until other factors such as plant type and other nutrients' availability limit it. Thus, carbon dioxide should be included in the list of environmental factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 ( talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done This seems a good point, so I have made the edit. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Would one of the images located here or here be useful for illustrating worldwide plant distribution? Praemonitus ( talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So in the side menu to the right of the page, under the heading of "Land plants" it is listed this way:
Land plants (embryophytes)
Non-vascular land plants (bryophytes)
•Marchantiophyta—liverworts •Anthocerotophyta—hornworts •Bryophyta—mosses •†Horneophytopsida
Vascular plants (tracheophytes)
•†Rhyniophyta—rhyniophytes •†Zosterophyllophyta—zosterophylls •Lycopodiophyta—clubmosses •†Trimerophytophyta—trimerophytes •Pteridophyta—ferns and horsetails •†Progymnospermophyta
Seed plants (spermatophytes)
•†Pteridospermatophyta—seed ferns •Pinophyta—conifers •Cycadophyta—cycads •Ginkgophyta—ginkgo •Gnetophyta—gnetae •Magnoliophyta—flowering plants
So... seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.145.148 ( talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
After the text,
A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae, after Kenrick and Crane,[24] is as follows, with modification to the Pteridophyta from Smith et al.
at the bottom of the article, the following table is showing me gibberish with lots of 'expansion depth exceeded' messages.
Seen In Chromium browser (v 31.0.1650.63 )
87.127.79.193 ( talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text in section 1.3 of the article, "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.", is not cited.
Would somebody please cite it for me? The corrected text would be as follows: "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.
citation needed".
Thank you.
99.120.10.54 (
talk)
22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
the opening sentance proclaims that "Plants are one of the two groups into which all living things are traditionally divided; the other is animals". This is totally wrong, there are infat several more divisions of life such as fungi, bacteria, ect. I'm amazed that such an important article could be written so poorly. And to be locked on top of it... 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I changed "are" to "have been". I hope this conveys that the two kingdom system has been superseded in scholarly discussion, while allowing for continued informal usage (as is mentioned later in that section). -- Donald Albury 12:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And since I edited over full protection, I'll revert myself if there is no consensus here to accept that edit. -- Donald Albury 12:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is very confusing – a product of the many competing visions of what a plant is. Some editors, and the opening sentence, have tried to force the article to address one modern interpretation of the word plant (i.e., the Viridaeplantae), but the article's focus needs to emphasize that the meaning of the term plant has evolved with the biological classification system. It is also very clear that different people now use the word plant to mean quite different things. That needs to be clearly stated, and the current and historical diversity of usage needs to be emphasized in the article. In essence the heart of article should be about disambiguation... For more precise groupings readers should be referred to the separate articles on Archaeplastida, Viridiplantae, and Embryophyta. The current article is an incoherent mess! ––(signature added) 09:04, 21 April 2015 Lesfreck
Maybe it's just me, but this is how the phylogenetic tree in the #Evolution section looks like for me. Can someone who is able to do that, fix it please? :) Thx. -- Thogo 09:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It says "Early Cambrian" but it shows the Middle Cambrian what's sup with that and please someone please fix that. — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The photosynthesis equation is not balanced. Change "O2" to "6O2". 67.70.42.104 ( talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
67.70.42.104 ( talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people refer to certain types of algae as a plant and many scientists refer to single celled plants.
If that is the case, is the beginning sentence of plants being multi-cellular only an accurate one? Chris Fletcher ( talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
members of that clade are multicellular. Plantsurfer 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a doctorate in biophysics, and thus I am not an "layperson", yet I have no idea what is meant by " Plants are also characterized by ... modular ... growth," even after reading the article it links to. The word "modular" does not appear in the linked article. I have "Plant Life" from Oxford Unifersity Press on my desk and it does not index "modular". Can some botanist please elucidate for the educated layperson, the meaning of "modular growth"? Thanks, Nick Beeson ( talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 ( talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand there's an issue around the paraphyly of the green algae. However, this article is about a (much) larger group, the plants as a whole, and the article's title is a common English name, so readers from school age upwards can reasonably expect at least the lead section to be simple and welcoming. I suggest, therefore, that we should not be launching into discussions of whether a particular group of plants happens to be paraphyletic - the job of the lead section is to give an overview of the plants as a whole, by summarizing the article as a whole. Taxonomic intricacies are not the priority there, specially in the first paragraph. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the beginning of the article decisively declares that "Plant" is synonymous with Viridiplantae. This unnecessarily narrows the scope of the article to only one technical definition from one discipline (biology). Even from a biological standpoint, this is contradicted immediately when the actual ambiguity of the term is unfolded under Definition. If the scope of this article is supposed to be limited to Viridiplantae, why is there also a Viridiplantae article? Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)
However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.
I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)