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 |
Jmv2009 made some signficant changes to the article in this series of edits. "Plant" is such an important article, and linked from so many places, that changes of this nature need to be discussed. I'm particularly concerned that the edits don't give due weight to alternative views, including those employed in most "plant" articles.
A separate issue is that primary sources should not be used as references for the authorship of taxa. The original paper in which a name appeared does not show that it is valid under the nomenclature codes: the name could be a homonym, it might not be properly published, etc. (There's also some confusion between authorship and sensu. A name authored by X does not have to be used in the sense intended by X: the nomenclature codes are clear that names do not determine circumscription, beyond any type involved.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is another (secondary) source with Plantae equal to Archaeplastida: [3]. I'll try to find more references (both ways). Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [4] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Another source: [5] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [6]. I never see Rhodophyta discussed as e.g. sister to Plantae. Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [7] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms , Rugiera et al [8] discuss the following: For decades, taxonomists have debated the boundary between Protozoa and Plantae. We accept the view that it should be placed just prior to the evolutionary origin of chloroplasts and that Plantae should comprise all eukaryotes with plastids directly descending from the initially enslaved cyanobacterium, i.e., Viridiplantae (green plants), Rhodophyta (red algae), and Glaucophyta (glaucophyte algae), but exclude those like chromists that ...
All random articles I found (e.g. after 2013 on scholar.google.com "Rhodophyta Plantae" search) follow the Plantae senso lato convention. Usually not much need to change in the other wikipedia articles despite the large number of references. In the taxobox the problem only occurs if both Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae are present, and Plantae is used for the latter as the "proper" Kingdom name. This only occurs mostly near the root of the Viridiplantae. Jmv2009 ( talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Still, a less biased search appears to give the first results (searching for "Plantae" only on scholar.google.com, but such a search is much less specifically confined to the root obviously):
and Rugiera et.al
[10] appears quite authoritive and is definetately a secondary source.
[11]
Jmv2009 (
talk)
15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Doing more searches on google scholar on both "plantae viridiplantae" or "plantae archaeplastida" the overwhelming majority appears to refer to viridiplantae. Viridiplantae is assigned to be a "subkingdom" often as well. Jmv2009 ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I would hope we would vie to educate people, rather than follow what most people think. Unfortunately, there is a difference. The biggest problem actually occurs in the taxoboxes which are still following the biological taxonomy system. I would like to avoid the Plantae moniker there as well, specifying less ambiguously either the Archaeplastida or the Viridiplantae. In the taxoboxes no senso stricto or senso lato is mentioned. Unfortunately this appears to be unacceptable as well. Jmv2009 ( talk) 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Plantae Viridiplantae" OR "Viridiplantae Plantae"as for the search
"Plantae Archaeplastida" OR "Archaeplastida Plantae", whereas it's the other way round if I search in Google Scholar. In neither case are they all what I really want, i.e. showing treatment as synonyms, which can only be seen by looking at individual cases. The core problem is that neither Plantae = Archaeplastida nor Plantae = Viridiplantae are well supported in secondary sources, which are always behind changes in scientific consensus, but these are the sources we need to use here.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Related to the discussion above, but slightly separate, is the issue of the list of "synonyms" in the taxobox. The taxobox says its target taxon is "Plantae sensu Copeland, 1956"; there's a difference between alternative names that correspond to this sense, e.g. Viridiplantae Cavalier-Smith (1981), and those that are alternative names of other senses of Plantae, e.g. Metaphyta Whittaker (1969), which more closely corresponds to the article's Plantae sensu strictissimo, and hence to Embryophyta Engler (1892). I think it's misleading to have a list here; it would be better to add a "synonyms" column to the table of definitions in the article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hii i joines wikipedia🤗 Govind kumar verma ( talk) 02:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Botanical and vegetation databases" section, the dead link for African Plant database can be changed to: http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/recherche.php?langue=an TravelingMel ( talk) 17:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the role of mycorrhizal symbiosis needs more prominence in the article, and deserves a section of its own, rather than being buried in Plant#Ecological relationships. The evidence is that this form of symbiosis has been present since land plants appeared, and was essential to their success, not just a feature of their ecology. I don't have time to work on this now, but it would be good if someone could. See Mycorrhiza and Arbuscular mycorrhiza for material and sources. Peter coxhead ( talk) 05:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rrigb5 ( talk) 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
To rewrite.
I can't find a source for this 300–315 figure, and the given ref says 321,212. [12] Another ref says 400,000. [13] I have a good source that has lots of info, click https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BDbgcCBC_NyLDkVo8In6y6EtMdJl1-pFPuaAkWGA62k/edit#slide=id.g427fdc3489_0_16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catguy101 ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.environmentalpollution.in/environment/5-ecological-factors-that-constitute-the-environment-of-an-organism/178. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Begoon 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want edits please i'm very smart 4804206117gigabite ( talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
hi_sisters is the new jeffry stares — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4804206117gigabite ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
h8uyuhohuhjuhu9huhuh7ihuh8ihh8iuhhubub7g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.171.40 ( talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
These two sentences are inconsistent:
Plants that produce grain, fruit and vegetables also form basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia.
The term "plant" generally implies the possession of the following traits: multicellularity, possession of cell walls containing cellulose, and the ability to carry out photosynthesis with primary chloroplasts.
Please add a serial comma to the first sentence (after "fruit") or remove it from the second sentence (after "cellulose"). 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:CDA2:D771:CB53:B57A ( talk) 23:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.93.22.199 ( talk) 03:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I wrote this article on the Zulu version of Wikipedia and I was trying to link it to this one as a new language but I can't because this one is locked. Can someone help me? SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 23:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you mind doing it for me? SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
That is how I was doing it from the first place but it keeps on telling me that I cannot edit the page because it is locked. I figured it was because of this page. SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 01:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay... thank you SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In the Diversity paragraph, lycopods are called "Lycopodiophyta", while ferns (and allies) are called "Pteridophyta" instead of "Polypodiophyta". "Pteridophyta" is actually a taxon that used to include both lycopodes ("Lycopodiophyta") and ferns ("Polypodiophyta"), and it's not considered monophyletic. I suggest to change "Pteridophyta" into "Polypodiophyta", since clicking "Pteridophyta" will direct you to the "Polypodiophyta/Polypodiopsida" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedling98 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avarosellini.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GraceHarnett21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecologystudent99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 15 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cderenne18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the section on algae in this article does not mention that algae are not in the kingdom Plantae; I feel this is important to mention, and would request that it would be changed .16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This file is protected - I am cautious about altering but would like to insert near the top :-"Jung was a man of great intellect, he defined a plant as: "A plant is a living non-sentient body, attached to a particular place or habitat, where it is able to feed, to grow in size, and finally to propagate itself." [1] Please advise lest I should not enter this. Morton1945 ( talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants
Plant
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] I chose this article because I have a passion for plants. specifically houseplants. I work at a local nursery and work in a greenhouse everyday with hundreds of different species of plants. I think this article is important because it can help people better understand plants and gardening. my first impression of this article is that it was very informational and continued a wide array of different sources.
Evaluate the article[edit] (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
the lead introduces the topic and give clear understand of what the article is going to be about. the content in this article is very pertinent to the topic and useful to understanding the article at large. from what I can tell the article is completely neutral and contains no bias or one sided arguments or claims. while this article is sourced from trustworthy and scholarly sites, they do seep to be slightly outdated. the sources come from many different places and appear to be in working order. this article is well written and easy to read but due to the sheer amount of information, one may consider it to be lengthy. the media included plays a large part of the understanding of the topic. after viewing the talk page, this article has an edit that was due to an incorrect image that was displaying the wrong plant for a description. this article is also part of a wiki project. overall, I enjoyed this article and its contents. I think the best part about this article is the wide array of information that it contained. its downfall is that it is rather lengthy and may deter a reader, I think a more concise version would be beneficial. this article is very well developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjdoane ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.20.22.166 ( talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Mistaken or confusing back reference here: "The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants...." Problem: the phrase "the latter" is most naturally construed with the phrase "green algae" at the end of the previous sentence. But the green algae do not include the Embryophyta etc.. If "the latter" is read as a back reference to Glaukophyta, then it is no longer true that Glaukophyta "consists in green algae" -- it includes the green algae as well as the Embryophyta, but does not consist in the green algae. I would replace the phrase "the latter" with an explicit noun, and then decide whether Glaukophyta do or do not include Viridiplantae. Right now, the sentences do not make sense. 2600:1017:B010:D64C:82EB:6853:B2FC:B0BC ( talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Plantae. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; however, all current definitions of Plantae exclude the fungi and some algae, as well as the prokaryotes (the archaea and bacteria). By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin name for "green plants") which is sister of the Glaucophyta, and consists of the green algae. The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns and their allies, hornworts, liverworts, and mosses.
Plants 202.164.132.81 ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the text "Musk Thistle are invasive species in texas." under the photo of the musk thistle, Texas is written with a lowercase "t" instead of the correct "T". Change "texas" to "Texas", please. Kikiswikis ( talk) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Done. Next time, WP:FIXIT. Zefr ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only editor who feels that this article on a major and very heavily-visited topic (5424 visits per day, just shy of 2 million visits per year) should be improved to Good Article status. That it is still at an accurately-assessed grade C (detailed, but inadequately cited) after all these years is actually remarkable. Still, it offers quite detailed (110 kBytes) and apparently accurate coverage of the subject, in a structure that is at least not totally unreasonable, and we can work on it. Of course we can freely rewrite garbled, uncited, or obsolete sections. If anyone would like to join me in this task, I'd be happy to collaborate. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone if has any thoughts on the following information in the evolution section. It doesn't seem like it's neutrally written and might also be undue towards the alternative theory? For more than a century it has been assumed that the ancestors of land plants evolved in aquatic environments and then adapted to a life on land, an idea usually credited to botanist Frederick Orpen Bower in his 1908 book The Origin of a Land Flora. A recent alternative view, supported by genetic evidence, is that they evolved from terrestrial single-celled algae, and that even the common ancestor of red and green algae, and the unicellular freshwater algae Glaucophytes, originated in a terrestrial environment in freshwater biofilms or microbial mats. This seems to read as if the the original theory is being discounted for the alternative one. The reference used for the alternative theory is this [17] which appears to be an opinion written in the journal. Eucalyptusmint ( talk) 02:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who is working on this topic. It's not my comfort zone (I'm much happier just working on single species where I don't need a big idea, and try sidestep all taxonomic disagreement), but it is very much needed. MtBotany ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Under Alternative concepts, the statement Plants in the strictest sense include the liverworts, hornworts, mosses, and vascular plants, as well as fossil plants similar to these surviving groups (e.g., Metaphyta Whittaker, 1969, Plantae Margulis, 1971). is supported by sources more than 50 years old and counting, and is increasingly challenged by the alternative perspective that land plants are algae. Plantsurfer 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A strong argument for the continued relevance of the traditional concept of plant = Plantae = Embryophyta seems to me to be the title "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants", separating plants from algae. I don't see any dispute that the embryophytes form a clade, so are a legitimate target.
On a different issue (the cladogram in Viridiplantae), I've long been concerned by some of the cladograms that Jmv2009 constructs and adds to articles. They appear to be based on synthesising sources. We've discussed this issue before somewhere; it may be justifiable to add a complete subtree from a different source to expand a cladogram, but it has to be clearly identified and separately referenced, which, I agree, is problematic with so many sources given. Do they all agree exactly as to both the precise shape and nomenclature of the cladogram? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked if we should discuss details of plant biochemicals in this article. My view is very simple: at this top level, the great-great-granddaddy of all Template:Botany articles, it's not appropriate. Instead, we paint the broad-brush picture. We mention Chlorophyll without going into the individual photopigments; we mention Photosynthesis without analysing the Calvin cycle; we mention Medicinal plants and briefly touch on Alkaloids without going into the dozens of varieties. I think this is exactly as it should be: the reader gets the big picture, and links to the articles at the next level (or the next two levels, perhaps). The finer detail is in the lower-level articles: there's no point keeping a dog and barking yourself, to coin a phrase. I do hope everybody is clear about this and happy with it: there isn't actually much alternative if we're trying to construct a picture that gives an overview for the general reader (we mustn't assume they know anything about biochemistry, for instance) and which leads gently into the large number of more technical articles in the tree. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Evolutionary Scenarios skips from Devonian directly to Permo-Triassic extinction without a mention of the Carboniferous, surely a notable period in the evolution of land plants. Plantsurfer 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace Cherry Blossom Festival: About. National Cherry Blossom Festival. Archived from the original broken link with updated relevant link https://whattheplants.in/cherry-blossom-festival/ Machinezoned ( talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: An email address machinezoned@gmail.com likely belong to Machinezoned is listed on the "Contact us" subpage of whattheplants.in. [1] So I suppose he may want to add spam links to promote his website. -- NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Hello! Some plants are not medicinal itself, but are drugs. Tobacco, coffe, tea, cannabis or coca are crops used for their psycoactivity. Should we add a sentence to the "medicinal" section, or open a new one? Theklan ( talk) 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if it fits below scientific uses, or should be added in the ecology section, but many bioremediation techniques use plants. It should be noted in one sentence. Theklan ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It could be part of see also, but I would add a section below Negative effects about plant blindness. This is an interesting phenomenon completely related to the article and not treated elsewhere. Theklan ( talk) 08:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It may be interesting to add a history of research section, which would be equal to summarizing the article about botany. Theklan ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Botany originated in prehistory as herbalism with the efforts of early humans to identify – and later cultivate – plants that were edible, poisonous, and possibly medicinal, making it one of the first endeavours of human investigation. Medieval physic gardens, often attached to monasteries, contained plants possibly having medicinal benefit. They were forerunners of the first botanical gardens attached to universities, founded from the 1540s onwards. One of the earliest was the Padua botanical garden. These gardens facilitated the academic study of plants. Efforts to catalogue and describe their collections were the beginnings of plant taxonomy, and led in 1753 to the binomial system of nomenclature of Carl Linnaeus that remains in use to this day for the naming of all biological species.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including methods of optical microscopy and live cell imaging, electron microscopy, analysis of chromosome number, plant chemistry and the structure and function of enzymes and other proteins. In the last two decades of the 20th century, botanists exploited the techniques of molecular genetic analysis, including genomics and proteomics and DNA sequences to classify plants more accurately.
Theklan ( talk) 09:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Modern botany is a broad, multidisciplinary subject with contributions and insights from most other areas of science and technology. Research topics include the study of plant structure, growth and differentiation, reproduction, biochemistry and primary metabolism, chemical products, development, diseases, evolutionary relationships, systematics, and plant taxonomy. Dominant themes in 21st century plant science are molecular genetics and epigenetics, which study the mechanisms and control of gene expression during differentiation of plant cells and tissues.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cessaune ( talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to review this. This will probably take a long time, so your patience is appreciated. Cessaune [talk] 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your exceptional patience.
I'm not at all knowledgeable about anything in this topic region. So some of the questions I ask or stuff I say may seem naive, dumb, wrong, etc. I don't really know what I'm talking about. Please feel free to critique my critiques.
I'm reasonably sure this is written in British English, so the template {{
British English}}
should be included on the talk page.
As a blanket concern pertaining to the whole article, I feel there is a general lack of soft pauses (commas, dashes, semicolons, etc.)
Cessaune: Many thanks for the review. I've replied to all the comments below. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the lead is the most visible part of the article, I will go into extensive detail.
Re-formatting:
Plants are
eukaryotes, predominantly
photosynthetic, the
eukaryotes that form the
kingdom Plantae. Many are
multicellular1; they are predominantly
photosynthetic. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not
animals, and included
algae and
fungi.; all current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae2. By one definition, plants form the clade
Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the
green algae and the
embryophytes or land plants. The latter include (
hornworts,
liverworts,
mosses,
lycophytes,
ferns,
conifers and other
gymnosperms, and
flowering plants)
. A definition based on
genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the
red algae and the
glaucophytes, in the clade
Archaeplastida.
Green plants3 obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common4.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines5. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.
Somewhat edited version:
Plants are the eukaryotes that form the kingdom Plantae. Most are multicellular; they are predominantly photosynthetic. Historically, as in Aristotle's biology, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae. By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the green algae and the embryophytes or land plants ( hornworts, liverworts, mosses, lycophytes, ferns, conifers and other gymnosperms, and flowering plants). A definition based on genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the red algae and the glaucophytes, in the clade Archaeplastida.
Green plants obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seedsbecame 'There are about 380,000 known species of plants, many of which produce seeds'... it's suboptimal. If most is an equally true statement, then use most, as, at the very least, it tells the reader that an absolute majority of known plants are multicellular. If most isn't a true statement, or if plants are about equally split between multicellular and unicellular (this isn't the case as far as I'm aware), then the sentence shouldn't be included. In the body, most is the preferred word (
Most plants are multicellular) However, a quick search online leads me to believe that the phrase has too much nuance to it to be leadworthy at all. The consensus seems to be that, under the strictest definition of plants, all plants are multicellular, but if algae is considered, only the vast majority of plants are multicellular. Rather than cramming this information into the lead, something about this should be included in the Alternative concepts section.
(Latin for "green plants")that is included immediately after the mention of Viridiplantae; I feel like an average reader would wonder whether or not "green plants" refers to Viridiplantae or to green-colored plants specifically. Worst case scenario: just switch green plants to Viridiplantae, and switch
Green plants provide a substantial...to 'Plants provide a substantial...', which is equally true.
Historically, the plant kingdomto
in the clade Archaeplastidashould be moved. The second paragraph would be moved up, and would continue on from
they are predominantly photosynthetic; the other text would become the new second paragraph. The contention over what should and shouldn't be considered a plant should come after the reader knows what plants generally are, and what they do/how they function.
Sources are adequate, and the prose is as lengthy as I think a GA requires.
[picozoa] probably belong in the Archaeplastida as sister of the Rhodophyta, which suggests to me that explicitly stating that picozoa are plants will confuse many readers. If you search online, some publications do not include green algae in plant classifications, while some do not consider them either plants or animals. Though not all the sources online that I read are reliable, the average reader may be confused by such a clear discrepancy. To combat this, more needs to be said about the disagreement over whether algae are considered plants, plant-like, animals, etc. This would then allow the article to state that its focus is on plants as defined by the clade Viridiplantae, and would clear up the algae isn't a plant! confusion. I guess the bolding in the table is supposed to signify this but I think that it needs to be explicitly stated.
Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.
Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
This section is worded weirdly. Potential rewrite: Plants photosynthesize, manufacturing food molecules using energy obtained from light. Plant cells contain chlorophylls inside their chloroplasts, which are green pigments that are used to capture light energy. The chemical equation for photosynthesis is:
This interaction causes oxygen to be released into the atmosphere. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen, alongside the contributions from photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
It could probably include a bit more but it's alright; sources are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Ecology as a whole is good and I see no issues with the sourcing or the prose. I quite like the gallery of images included in the middle.
As a blanket concern, I feel that this section is too human-centric, and forgets about the fact that plants are important to essentially all living beings. This statement applies to all sub-sections.
Moving on:
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
This section needs to be fleshed out a bit. I think it should generally mirror Plants in culture#Symbolic uses.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Cessaune [talk] 08:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
many cultural and other uses, but if you wish to keep it that way, it's fine. Cessaune [talk] 01:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if I should be making comments like this on the (upcoming) GA Review or here. Regardless, it's the same point I made while reviewing Flowering plant, and it should be self-explanatory. Remarkably, we have at least one corresponding sub-article - Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity - yet neither of the two articles links to it.
However, that article is also badly outdated (nearly every reference is from early 2000s) and will likely need to be rewritten almost from the ground up, perhaps as an article with slightly broader scope (i.e. Decline of plant biodiversity, to match Decline in amphibian populations, Decline in insect populations, and perhaps impending articles on mammals and reptiles.) In its current state, it may be useful to provide inspiration, but probably shouldn't be excerpted or have its citations carried over without a search for an update.
Lastly, while I don't feel overly comfortable recommending my own work (having written >80% of the article), I think Extinction risk from climate change#Plants can serve as a useful starting point for creating such sections. It refers to the most current assessments I know of, and I believe that in particular, Plants People Planet meta-analysis from the year 2020 may be of great help here. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
According to my knowledge, "sensu" means "in the sense of" in Latin. It is usually followed by an adjective to provide a more specific meaning. However, in this case, there is no such word, so the meaning of "sensu" is unclear. I noticed that this term was added in Special:Diff/644848541, but this user has not been active in recent years. I wonder if there are any other users who can help clarify this issue? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 14:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
In the sexual repro section it is stated that "in mosses and ferns, the sexual gametophyte forms most of the visible plant"; actually, in ferns the gametophyte is the small prothallium, and the sporophyte is the "main fern", isn't it? WolfGreg9 ( talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
opening paragraph fix: there are plenty of plants that parasitise off fungi networks, and ive heard of some that parasitise off animals. 84.66.216.95 ( talk) 02:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It then goes on to explain that bacteria, fungi and lichens were previously included so the definition is not set in stone.gen. and Biology. A living organism other than an animal, able to subsist wholly on inorganic substances, typically fixed to a substrate and moving chiefly by means of growth, and lacking specialized sensory and digestive organs; spec. (more fully green plant) such an organism belonging to a group (the kingdom Plantae) which comprises multicellular forms having cellulose cell walls and capable of photosynthesis by means of chlorophyll, including trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, and ferns (the vascular or higher plants), and also mosses and liverworts (the bryophytes). Frequently spec.: a small (esp. herbaceous) organism of this kind, as distinguished from a tree or shrub; (in informal use) such an organism grown for or known by its foliage or fruit, as distinguished from a ‘flower’.
Plant, (kingdom Plantae), any multicellular eukaryotic life-form characterized by (1) photosynthetic nutrition (a characteristic possessed by all plants except some parasitic plants and underground orchids), in which chemical energy is produced from water, minerals, and carbon dioxide with the aid of pigments and the radiant energy of the Sun, (2) essentially unlimited growth at localized regions, (3) cells that contain cellulose in their walls and are therefore to some extent rigid, (4) the absence of organs of locomotion, resulting in a more or less stationary existence, (5) the absence of nervous systems, and (6) life histories that show an alteration of haploid and diploid generations, with the dominance of one over the other being taxonomically significant.
Why it was defined as Viridiplantae rather than Archaeplastida in the taxobox? And why not redirect Viridiplantae to this article? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2023 (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 |
Jmv2009 made some signficant changes to the article in this series of edits. "Plant" is such an important article, and linked from so many places, that changes of this nature need to be discussed. I'm particularly concerned that the edits don't give due weight to alternative views, including those employed in most "plant" articles.
A separate issue is that primary sources should not be used as references for the authorship of taxa. The original paper in which a name appeared does not show that it is valid under the nomenclature codes: the name could be a homonym, it might not be properly published, etc. (There's also some confusion between authorship and sensu. A name authored by X does not have to be used in the sense intended by X: the nomenclature codes are clear that names do not determine circumscription, beyond any type involved.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is another (secondary) source with Plantae equal to Archaeplastida: [3]. I'll try to find more references (both ways). Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [4] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Another source: [5] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [6]. I never see Rhodophyta discussed as e.g. sister to Plantae. Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source: [7] Jmv2009 ( talk) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms , Rugiera et al [8] discuss the following: For decades, taxonomists have debated the boundary between Protozoa and Plantae. We accept the view that it should be placed just prior to the evolutionary origin of chloroplasts and that Plantae should comprise all eukaryotes with plastids directly descending from the initially enslaved cyanobacterium, i.e., Viridiplantae (green plants), Rhodophyta (red algae), and Glaucophyta (glaucophyte algae), but exclude those like chromists that ...
All random articles I found (e.g. after 2013 on scholar.google.com "Rhodophyta Plantae" search) follow the Plantae senso lato convention. Usually not much need to change in the other wikipedia articles despite the large number of references. In the taxobox the problem only occurs if both Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae are present, and Plantae is used for the latter as the "proper" Kingdom name. This only occurs mostly near the root of the Viridiplantae. Jmv2009 ( talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Still, a less biased search appears to give the first results (searching for "Plantae" only on scholar.google.com, but such a search is much less specifically confined to the root obviously):
and Rugiera et.al
[10] appears quite authoritive and is definetately a secondary source.
[11]
Jmv2009 (
talk)
15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Doing more searches on google scholar on both "plantae viridiplantae" or "plantae archaeplastida" the overwhelming majority appears to refer to viridiplantae. Viridiplantae is assigned to be a "subkingdom" often as well. Jmv2009 ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I would hope we would vie to educate people, rather than follow what most people think. Unfortunately, there is a difference. The biggest problem actually occurs in the taxoboxes which are still following the biological taxonomy system. I would like to avoid the Plantae moniker there as well, specifying less ambiguously either the Archaeplastida or the Viridiplantae. In the taxoboxes no senso stricto or senso lato is mentioned. Unfortunately this appears to be unacceptable as well. Jmv2009 ( talk) 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Plantae Viridiplantae" OR "Viridiplantae Plantae"as for the search
"Plantae Archaeplastida" OR "Archaeplastida Plantae", whereas it's the other way round if I search in Google Scholar. In neither case are they all what I really want, i.e. showing treatment as synonyms, which can only be seen by looking at individual cases. The core problem is that neither Plantae = Archaeplastida nor Plantae = Viridiplantae are well supported in secondary sources, which are always behind changes in scientific consensus, but these are the sources we need to use here.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Related to the discussion above, but slightly separate, is the issue of the list of "synonyms" in the taxobox. The taxobox says its target taxon is "Plantae sensu Copeland, 1956"; there's a difference between alternative names that correspond to this sense, e.g. Viridiplantae Cavalier-Smith (1981), and those that are alternative names of other senses of Plantae, e.g. Metaphyta Whittaker (1969), which more closely corresponds to the article's Plantae sensu strictissimo, and hence to Embryophyta Engler (1892). I think it's misleading to have a list here; it would be better to add a "synonyms" column to the table of definitions in the article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hii i joines wikipedia🤗 Govind kumar verma ( talk) 02:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Botanical and vegetation databases" section, the dead link for African Plant database can be changed to: http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/recherche.php?langue=an TravelingMel ( talk) 17:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the role of mycorrhizal symbiosis needs more prominence in the article, and deserves a section of its own, rather than being buried in Plant#Ecological relationships. The evidence is that this form of symbiosis has been present since land plants appeared, and was essential to their success, not just a feature of their ecology. I don't have time to work on this now, but it would be good if someone could. See Mycorrhiza and Arbuscular mycorrhiza for material and sources. Peter coxhead ( talk) 05:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rrigb5 ( talk) 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
To rewrite.
I can't find a source for this 300–315 figure, and the given ref says 321,212. [12] Another ref says 400,000. [13] I have a good source that has lots of info, click https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BDbgcCBC_NyLDkVo8In6y6EtMdJl1-pFPuaAkWGA62k/edit#slide=id.g427fdc3489_0_16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catguy101 ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.environmentalpollution.in/environment/5-ecological-factors-that-constitute-the-environment-of-an-organism/178. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Begoon 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want edits please i'm very smart 4804206117gigabite ( talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
hi_sisters is the new jeffry stares — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4804206117gigabite ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
h8uyuhohuhjuhu9huhuh7ihuh8ihh8iuhhubub7g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.171.40 ( talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
These two sentences are inconsistent:
Plants that produce grain, fruit and vegetables also form basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia.
The term "plant" generally implies the possession of the following traits: multicellularity, possession of cell walls containing cellulose, and the ability to carry out photosynthesis with primary chloroplasts.
Please add a serial comma to the first sentence (after "fruit") or remove it from the second sentence (after "cellulose"). 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:CDA2:D771:CB53:B57A ( talk) 23:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.93.22.199 ( talk) 03:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I wrote this article on the Zulu version of Wikipedia and I was trying to link it to this one as a new language but I can't because this one is locked. Can someone help me? SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 23:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you mind doing it for me? SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
That is how I was doing it from the first place but it keeps on telling me that I cannot edit the page because it is locked. I figured it was because of this page. SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 01:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay... thank you SmangaMbongwa ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In the Diversity paragraph, lycopods are called "Lycopodiophyta", while ferns (and allies) are called "Pteridophyta" instead of "Polypodiophyta". "Pteridophyta" is actually a taxon that used to include both lycopodes ("Lycopodiophyta") and ferns ("Polypodiophyta"), and it's not considered monophyletic. I suggest to change "Pteridophyta" into "Polypodiophyta", since clicking "Pteridophyta" will direct you to the "Polypodiophyta/Polypodiopsida" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedling98 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avarosellini.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GraceHarnett21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecologystudent99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 15 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cderenne18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the section on algae in this article does not mention that algae are not in the kingdom Plantae; I feel this is important to mention, and would request that it would be changed .16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This file is protected - I am cautious about altering but would like to insert near the top :-"Jung was a man of great intellect, he defined a plant as: "A plant is a living non-sentient body, attached to a particular place or habitat, where it is able to feed, to grow in size, and finally to propagate itself." [1] Please advise lest I should not enter this. Morton1945 ( talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants
Plant
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] I chose this article because I have a passion for plants. specifically houseplants. I work at a local nursery and work in a greenhouse everyday with hundreds of different species of plants. I think this article is important because it can help people better understand plants and gardening. my first impression of this article is that it was very informational and continued a wide array of different sources.
Evaluate the article[edit] (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
the lead introduces the topic and give clear understand of what the article is going to be about. the content in this article is very pertinent to the topic and useful to understanding the article at large. from what I can tell the article is completely neutral and contains no bias or one sided arguments or claims. while this article is sourced from trustworthy and scholarly sites, they do seep to be slightly outdated. the sources come from many different places and appear to be in working order. this article is well written and easy to read but due to the sheer amount of information, one may consider it to be lengthy. the media included plays a large part of the understanding of the topic. after viewing the talk page, this article has an edit that was due to an incorrect image that was displaying the wrong plant for a description. this article is also part of a wiki project. overall, I enjoyed this article and its contents. I think the best part about this article is the wide array of information that it contained. its downfall is that it is rather lengthy and may deter a reader, I think a more concise version would be beneficial. this article is very well developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjdoane ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.20.22.166 ( talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Mistaken or confusing back reference here: "The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants...." Problem: the phrase "the latter" is most naturally construed with the phrase "green algae" at the end of the previous sentence. But the green algae do not include the Embryophyta etc.. If "the latter" is read as a back reference to Glaukophyta, then it is no longer true that Glaukophyta "consists in green algae" -- it includes the green algae as well as the Embryophyta, but does not consist in the green algae. I would replace the phrase "the latter" with an explicit noun, and then decide whether Glaukophyta do or do not include Viridiplantae. Right now, the sentences do not make sense. 2600:1017:B010:D64C:82EB:6853:B2FC:B0BC ( talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Plantae. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; however, all current definitions of Plantae exclude the fungi and some algae, as well as the prokaryotes (the archaea and bacteria). By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin name for "green plants") which is sister of the Glaucophyta, and consists of the green algae. The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns and their allies, hornworts, liverworts, and mosses.
Plants 202.164.132.81 ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the text "Musk Thistle are invasive species in texas." under the photo of the musk thistle, Texas is written with a lowercase "t" instead of the correct "T". Change "texas" to "Texas", please. Kikiswikis ( talk) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Done. Next time, WP:FIXIT. Zefr ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only editor who feels that this article on a major and very heavily-visited topic (5424 visits per day, just shy of 2 million visits per year) should be improved to Good Article status. That it is still at an accurately-assessed grade C (detailed, but inadequately cited) after all these years is actually remarkable. Still, it offers quite detailed (110 kBytes) and apparently accurate coverage of the subject, in a structure that is at least not totally unreasonable, and we can work on it. Of course we can freely rewrite garbled, uncited, or obsolete sections. If anyone would like to join me in this task, I'd be happy to collaborate. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone if has any thoughts on the following information in the evolution section. It doesn't seem like it's neutrally written and might also be undue towards the alternative theory? For more than a century it has been assumed that the ancestors of land plants evolved in aquatic environments and then adapted to a life on land, an idea usually credited to botanist Frederick Orpen Bower in his 1908 book The Origin of a Land Flora. A recent alternative view, supported by genetic evidence, is that they evolved from terrestrial single-celled algae, and that even the common ancestor of red and green algae, and the unicellular freshwater algae Glaucophytes, originated in a terrestrial environment in freshwater biofilms or microbial mats. This seems to read as if the the original theory is being discounted for the alternative one. The reference used for the alternative theory is this [17] which appears to be an opinion written in the journal. Eucalyptusmint ( talk) 02:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who is working on this topic. It's not my comfort zone (I'm much happier just working on single species where I don't need a big idea, and try sidestep all taxonomic disagreement), but it is very much needed. MtBotany ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Under Alternative concepts, the statement Plants in the strictest sense include the liverworts, hornworts, mosses, and vascular plants, as well as fossil plants similar to these surviving groups (e.g., Metaphyta Whittaker, 1969, Plantae Margulis, 1971). is supported by sources more than 50 years old and counting, and is increasingly challenged by the alternative perspective that land plants are algae. Plantsurfer 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A strong argument for the continued relevance of the traditional concept of plant = Plantae = Embryophyta seems to me to be the title "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants", separating plants from algae. I don't see any dispute that the embryophytes form a clade, so are a legitimate target.
On a different issue (the cladogram in Viridiplantae), I've long been concerned by some of the cladograms that Jmv2009 constructs and adds to articles. They appear to be based on synthesising sources. We've discussed this issue before somewhere; it may be justifiable to add a complete subtree from a different source to expand a cladogram, but it has to be clearly identified and separately referenced, which, I agree, is problematic with so many sources given. Do they all agree exactly as to both the precise shape and nomenclature of the cladogram? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked if we should discuss details of plant biochemicals in this article. My view is very simple: at this top level, the great-great-granddaddy of all Template:Botany articles, it's not appropriate. Instead, we paint the broad-brush picture. We mention Chlorophyll without going into the individual photopigments; we mention Photosynthesis without analysing the Calvin cycle; we mention Medicinal plants and briefly touch on Alkaloids without going into the dozens of varieties. I think this is exactly as it should be: the reader gets the big picture, and links to the articles at the next level (or the next two levels, perhaps). The finer detail is in the lower-level articles: there's no point keeping a dog and barking yourself, to coin a phrase. I do hope everybody is clear about this and happy with it: there isn't actually much alternative if we're trying to construct a picture that gives an overview for the general reader (we mustn't assume they know anything about biochemistry, for instance) and which leads gently into the large number of more technical articles in the tree. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Evolutionary Scenarios skips from Devonian directly to Permo-Triassic extinction without a mention of the Carboniferous, surely a notable period in the evolution of land plants. Plantsurfer 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Plant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace Cherry Blossom Festival: About. National Cherry Blossom Festival. Archived from the original broken link with updated relevant link https://whattheplants.in/cherry-blossom-festival/ Machinezoned ( talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: An email address machinezoned@gmail.com likely belong to Machinezoned is listed on the "Contact us" subpage of whattheplants.in. [1] So I suppose he may want to add spam links to promote his website. -- NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Hello! Some plants are not medicinal itself, but are drugs. Tobacco, coffe, tea, cannabis or coca are crops used for their psycoactivity. Should we add a sentence to the "medicinal" section, or open a new one? Theklan ( talk) 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if it fits below scientific uses, or should be added in the ecology section, but many bioremediation techniques use plants. It should be noted in one sentence. Theklan ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It could be part of see also, but I would add a section below Negative effects about plant blindness. This is an interesting phenomenon completely related to the article and not treated elsewhere. Theklan ( talk) 08:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It may be interesting to add a history of research section, which would be equal to summarizing the article about botany. Theklan ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Botany originated in prehistory as herbalism with the efforts of early humans to identify – and later cultivate – plants that were edible, poisonous, and possibly medicinal, making it one of the first endeavours of human investigation. Medieval physic gardens, often attached to monasteries, contained plants possibly having medicinal benefit. They were forerunners of the first botanical gardens attached to universities, founded from the 1540s onwards. One of the earliest was the Padua botanical garden. These gardens facilitated the academic study of plants. Efforts to catalogue and describe their collections were the beginnings of plant taxonomy, and led in 1753 to the binomial system of nomenclature of Carl Linnaeus that remains in use to this day for the naming of all biological species.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including methods of optical microscopy and live cell imaging, electron microscopy, analysis of chromosome number, plant chemistry and the structure and function of enzymes and other proteins. In the last two decades of the 20th century, botanists exploited the techniques of molecular genetic analysis, including genomics and proteomics and DNA sequences to classify plants more accurately.
Theklan ( talk) 09:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Modern botany is a broad, multidisciplinary subject with contributions and insights from most other areas of science and technology. Research topics include the study of plant structure, growth and differentiation, reproduction, biochemistry and primary metabolism, chemical products, development, diseases, evolutionary relationships, systematics, and plant taxonomy. Dominant themes in 21st century plant science are molecular genetics and epigenetics, which study the mechanisms and control of gene expression during differentiation of plant cells and tissues.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cessaune ( talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to review this. This will probably take a long time, so your patience is appreciated. Cessaune [talk] 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your exceptional patience.
I'm not at all knowledgeable about anything in this topic region. So some of the questions I ask or stuff I say may seem naive, dumb, wrong, etc. I don't really know what I'm talking about. Please feel free to critique my critiques.
I'm reasonably sure this is written in British English, so the template {{
British English}}
should be included on the talk page.
As a blanket concern pertaining to the whole article, I feel there is a general lack of soft pauses (commas, dashes, semicolons, etc.)
Cessaune: Many thanks for the review. I've replied to all the comments below. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the lead is the most visible part of the article, I will go into extensive detail.
Re-formatting:
Plants are
eukaryotes, predominantly
photosynthetic, the
eukaryotes that form the
kingdom Plantae. Many are
multicellular1; they are predominantly
photosynthetic. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not
animals, and included
algae and
fungi.; all current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae2. By one definition, plants form the clade
Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the
green algae and the
embryophytes or land plants. The latter include (
hornworts,
liverworts,
mosses,
lycophytes,
ferns,
conifers and other
gymnosperms, and
flowering plants)
. A definition based on
genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the
red algae and the
glaucophytes, in the clade
Archaeplastida.
Green plants3 obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common4.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines5. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.
Somewhat edited version:
Plants are the eukaryotes that form the kingdom Plantae. Most are multicellular; they are predominantly photosynthetic. Historically, as in Aristotle's biology, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae. By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the green algae and the embryophytes or land plants ( hornworts, liverworts, mosses, lycophytes, ferns, conifers and other gymnosperms, and flowering plants). A definition based on genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the red algae and the glaucophytes, in the clade Archaeplastida.
Green plants obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.
There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seedsbecame 'There are about 380,000 known species of plants, many of which produce seeds'... it's suboptimal. If most is an equally true statement, then use most, as, at the very least, it tells the reader that an absolute majority of known plants are multicellular. If most isn't a true statement, or if plants are about equally split between multicellular and unicellular (this isn't the case as far as I'm aware), then the sentence shouldn't be included. In the body, most is the preferred word (
Most plants are multicellular) However, a quick search online leads me to believe that the phrase has too much nuance to it to be leadworthy at all. The consensus seems to be that, under the strictest definition of plants, all plants are multicellular, but if algae is considered, only the vast majority of plants are multicellular. Rather than cramming this information into the lead, something about this should be included in the Alternative concepts section.
(Latin for "green plants")that is included immediately after the mention of Viridiplantae; I feel like an average reader would wonder whether or not "green plants" refers to Viridiplantae or to green-colored plants specifically. Worst case scenario: just switch green plants to Viridiplantae, and switch
Green plants provide a substantial...to 'Plants provide a substantial...', which is equally true.
Historically, the plant kingdomto
in the clade Archaeplastidashould be moved. The second paragraph would be moved up, and would continue on from
they are predominantly photosynthetic; the other text would become the new second paragraph. The contention over what should and shouldn't be considered a plant should come after the reader knows what plants generally are, and what they do/how they function.
Sources are adequate, and the prose is as lengthy as I think a GA requires.
[picozoa] probably belong in the Archaeplastida as sister of the Rhodophyta, which suggests to me that explicitly stating that picozoa are plants will confuse many readers. If you search online, some publications do not include green algae in plant classifications, while some do not consider them either plants or animals. Though not all the sources online that I read are reliable, the average reader may be confused by such a clear discrepancy. To combat this, more needs to be said about the disagreement over whether algae are considered plants, plant-like, animals, etc. This would then allow the article to state that its focus is on plants as defined by the clade Viridiplantae, and would clear up the algae isn't a plant! confusion. I guess the bolding in the table is supposed to signify this but I think that it needs to be explicitly stated.
Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.
Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
This section is worded weirdly. Potential rewrite: Plants photosynthesize, manufacturing food molecules using energy obtained from light. Plant cells contain chlorophylls inside their chloroplasts, which are green pigments that are used to capture light energy. The chemical equation for photosynthesis is:
This interaction causes oxygen to be released into the atmosphere. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen, alongside the contributions from photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
It could probably include a bit more but it's alright; sources are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Ecology as a whole is good and I see no issues with the sourcing or the prose. I quite like the gallery of images included in the middle.
As a blanket concern, I feel that this section is too human-centric, and forgets about the fact that plants are important to essentially all living beings. This statement applies to all sub-sections.
Moving on:
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Sources and prose are adequate.
This section needs to be fleshed out a bit. I think it should generally mirror Plants in culture#Symbolic uses.
Sources and prose are adequate.
Cessaune [talk] 08:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
many cultural and other uses, but if you wish to keep it that way, it's fine. Cessaune [talk] 01:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if I should be making comments like this on the (upcoming) GA Review or here. Regardless, it's the same point I made while reviewing Flowering plant, and it should be self-explanatory. Remarkably, we have at least one corresponding sub-article - Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity - yet neither of the two articles links to it.
However, that article is also badly outdated (nearly every reference is from early 2000s) and will likely need to be rewritten almost from the ground up, perhaps as an article with slightly broader scope (i.e. Decline of plant biodiversity, to match Decline in amphibian populations, Decline in insect populations, and perhaps impending articles on mammals and reptiles.) In its current state, it may be useful to provide inspiration, but probably shouldn't be excerpted or have its citations carried over without a search for an update.
Lastly, while I don't feel overly comfortable recommending my own work (having written >80% of the article), I think Extinction risk from climate change#Plants can serve as a useful starting point for creating such sections. It refers to the most current assessments I know of, and I believe that in particular, Plants People Planet meta-analysis from the year 2020 may be of great help here. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
According to my knowledge, "sensu" means "in the sense of" in Latin. It is usually followed by an adjective to provide a more specific meaning. However, in this case, there is no such word, so the meaning of "sensu" is unclear. I noticed that this term was added in Special:Diff/644848541, but this user has not been active in recent years. I wonder if there are any other users who can help clarify this issue? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 14:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
In the sexual repro section it is stated that "in mosses and ferns, the sexual gametophyte forms most of the visible plant"; actually, in ferns the gametophyte is the small prothallium, and the sporophyte is the "main fern", isn't it? WolfGreg9 ( talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
opening paragraph fix: there are plenty of plants that parasitise off fungi networks, and ive heard of some that parasitise off animals. 84.66.216.95 ( talk) 02:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It then goes on to explain that bacteria, fungi and lichens were previously included so the definition is not set in stone.gen. and Biology. A living organism other than an animal, able to subsist wholly on inorganic substances, typically fixed to a substrate and moving chiefly by means of growth, and lacking specialized sensory and digestive organs; spec. (more fully green plant) such an organism belonging to a group (the kingdom Plantae) which comprises multicellular forms having cellulose cell walls and capable of photosynthesis by means of chlorophyll, including trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, and ferns (the vascular or higher plants), and also mosses and liverworts (the bryophytes). Frequently spec.: a small (esp. herbaceous) organism of this kind, as distinguished from a tree or shrub; (in informal use) such an organism grown for or known by its foliage or fruit, as distinguished from a ‘flower’.
Plant, (kingdom Plantae), any multicellular eukaryotic life-form characterized by (1) photosynthetic nutrition (a characteristic possessed by all plants except some parasitic plants and underground orchids), in which chemical energy is produced from water, minerals, and carbon dioxide with the aid of pigments and the radiant energy of the Sun, (2) essentially unlimited growth at localized regions, (3) cells that contain cellulose in their walls and are therefore to some extent rigid, (4) the absence of organs of locomotion, resulting in a more or less stationary existence, (5) the absence of nervous systems, and (6) life histories that show an alteration of haploid and diploid generations, with the dominance of one over the other being taxonomically significant.
Why it was defined as Viridiplantae rather than Archaeplastida in the taxobox? And why not redirect Viridiplantae to this article? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)