Talk:Plant

Intro Number Discrepancy

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)

Wow, this confusion stayed here for a year! I just edited it to match the numbers put out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which is an authoritative source for such counts. Now there is but one set of numbers in the first paragraph. But the numbers do not agree with the table. I do not know what to do about that. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the numbers. I agree this page is a mess. Your numbers do not seem to include the green algae or the red algae, which probably should be added too. This article could use some serious work, as the quality is rather spotty right now. (You are right, the table should be fixed--and the lycophytes should be removed from the pteridophytes). I plan to work on this page someday if no one beats me to it. One big problem with this page is that it does not commit to a definition of plant. I would recommend either land plants (embryophytes) which is the common non-scientific conception of plant, or the whole clade including red algae, glaucophytes and green algae. The Kenrick and Crane phylogeny uses a lot of obscure terms (e.g. subphyla) and is rather dated. We have a better picture now than we did 14 years ago.Michaplot (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We have been defining this page as synonymous with "Viridiplantae". If we use the truly "common" definition of plants, we'd have to make this page a polyphyletic mess. The common definition (even in science museums) includes all algae, even the kelps. I'm not sure what you mean by separating the lycophytes from the pteridophytes. They're separate in the table, and the problem with the intro is that it dumps a lot of detailed data at the article's outset instead of summarizing the article as it should do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that viridiplantae is as good a circumscription of "plant" as any (But then the article should not have the sentence, "Plants are distinguished from green algae..."). The Tree of Life project concurs with this definition, but Jepson UCMP site does not. My problem with the table is that it has Pteridophyta and Lycophyta, (which construction usually refers to a Linnaean rank), but they are both listed as pterdiophytes. The use of pteridophyte to include both lycophytes and ferns is regrettable. Certainly it persists, but has largely disappeared in many places. I think it is a mistake to perpetuate the usage on WP. In fact, the reference cited for this usage does not use or support that use of pteridophyte. Rather it notes that this a historical usage that defines a paraphyletic assemblage. As such it should be abandoned, especially as the ferns s.l. are commonly now referred to as pteridophytes (or pterophytes) to distinguish them from lycophytes. I think we should rewrite the pteridophyte page to reflect current and historical usage--I will post a request for consensus on the talk page for that article.

I agree that this article needs some reorganization. It also needs rewriting for accuracy. What, for example, is a "seed embryo"? The term "primitive" should never refer to a taxon. The pollen tube does not penetrate the seed coat. Plants should not be defined as members of the plant kingdom as that is at best unhelpful and probably tautological, and plus this is how the Britannica article begins. Etc.Michaplot (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. What is "Jepson UCMP"? Do you mean the Jepson Manual or the Jepson Herbarium? The Jepson Manual covers "higher plants" in its surrent edition, but there are plans to add bryophytes (at least) in a later edition. The UCMP website is for the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and is a completely separate museum and website. Its plant exhibits are very dated at this point, and I say that as the author of most of them. The choice of "Plantae" was made according to the obsolete five kingdom concept, and were I to write those pages todat I wouldn't do that. The phylogeny of green plants was still a relatively new area of study at the time I wrote those pages.

Why is "pteridophyte" regrettable? Do you advocate the elimination of the term "bryophyte"? "green algae"? "algae"? "fish"? "marine mammal"? These terms are not clades, but that does not mean the terms are not useful for describing groups with shared ecological and life history traits. Not every subject of biology is restricted to or uniform throughout a single clade. As for revising the pteridophyte page, I'd be strongly against it. The article should be about the topic it currently covers, not about the name chosen for the article. This is a point being discussed already at WP:PLANTS. Articles should be about a biological topic, not about an English word. The latter is the purview of dictionaries, not an encyclopedia. We use disambiguation links to address overlap of words; we should not use entire articles to do this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2011 (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)

No, the pteridophyte article is not about what is meant by the word "pteridophyte", nor should it be. If you do not understand the topic/label distinction, then I suggest you read Use–mention distinction. An article about a biological group should never be determined by its name, rather, the name of the article should follow from its content. "Pteridophyte" is the best label for the topic discussed on that article, so that is used as its name. There is a separate article about Pteridophyta, because that is a different topic, and "Fern" is the current name for that article. The pteridophyte article should not be converted into a mish-mash discussing both topics. These are two separate topics, so they should be two separate articles. Wikipedia should indeed conver topics exhaustively, but not all on a single page. The place to exhaustively define words is Wiktionary; Wikipedia deals in topics, not words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your perspective (and avidity) on this topic of names. Still, and pardon me if I am being obdurate, it seems to me your plaint applies not at all to what I have been saying. I am well aware of the use/mention issue (and fallacy), and, since many WP articles (and real world employments as well) are mixtures of use and mention, it does not strike me as a clear or germane distinction to make—rather we should consider each instance, case by case. And I am not advocating making the article about the word “pteridophyte”.

I fully understand that WP articles should be about items or entities organized primarily by what they are, not by how they are named.

I feel that what you are arguing, EncycloPetey, is a philosophical position and a rather specific and tendentious one. There are other positions. While I am not interested in debating nominalism vs. realism or the pedantry of the use/mention concern right now, I think it patently untenable to claim, “An article about a biological group should never be determined by its name, rather, the name of the article should follow from its content”. Terms are human constructs. The group pteridophyte would not exist without its name, and thus must be defined. (The Wikipedia is not a Dictionary page says, “Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions…. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.”

Since no “pteridophyte” concept exists in nature, the only claim for existence one can make is that biologists have erected a concept “pteridophyte”. WP cannot avoid the fact that science is based on nomenclature and that sometimes nomenclature changes, and, most importantly, that the concept named in the name, may be artificial. And, even if it seems to be natural (e.g. we believe we have perceived an actual pattern in nature and not imposed an expedient one), we cannot be sure. Thus for biological groups it is often necessary to discuss the complexities of how they have been conceived and named. This seems to me well within the purview of WP.

Which brings me to the point that I am not sure I think pterdiophyte is the best label for the topic, now that you have pointed out to me it is the primary page for this assemblage. Seedless vascular plant is perhaps more common in textbooks these days. Britannica uses lower vascular plants and notes that these were formerly called pteridophytes (but is co-written by Gifford, and thus is probably out of date). Judd, et al. (Plant Systematics) uses the term “free-sporing tracheophytes” (in quotes to indicate they are paraphyletic) and mentions that they are also called ferns and fern allies or pteridophytes. Campbell never mentions the word pteridophyte, but does use the word pterophyte (to mean the ferns). Seedless vascular plant is the term for seedless vascular plants in Campbell.

It seems to me that encyclopedia authors must make a decision about what article to create and what to name it based on optimizing the concept and name that most reflects current use (what people are likely looking for when they consult the encyclopedia) and the concept and name that is best on scientific grounds (in cases like this, where current use, even among scientists, may lag behind advances in science—which is why traditional encyclopedias are written by experts with broad knowledge). In this case, it is a difficult problem. I think by whatever name we call the seedless vascular plants, we should have a discussion in the article about the fact that the concept and the names are problematic but with historical significance, that alternative names exist as well as similar names, easily confused (e.g. pteridophyte/pterdiophyta). This would add value to the article within the spirit of WP. And it would most certainly not remove the focus from the plants to the names.

I was simultaneously horrified and amused to recall having the Bryophyte page begin with a mention not a use! But then there seems to be a good tradition of this on WP for defunct taxa (see Bromeliales, Glumiflorae, Gynandrae, Helobiae, Juncales, Liliiflorae, e.g.) Perhaps this is not warranted, as one difference is that bryophyte and pteridophyte are still used, which reflects an ongoing revolution and concomitant schism in modern biology, and that is a topic for WP. Still, the names are names—they are symbols or maps, not natural entities or territories, and WP must wallow in names to exalt the concepts.Michaplot (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this digression into philosophy, nor the appeal to Campbell, by which I assume you mean the famous work on bryophyte and pteridophyte morphology that was published 100 years ago. Victorian/Edwardian terminology differs vastly from the modern in many cases and cannot be used as a guide to the present. This is especially true in this case, since some of the fossil pteridophytes are now known not to have been vascular plants after all. So, they cannot be accurately called "seedless vascular plants" as they were'nt all vascular. I'm also also confused by your claim that Campbell never mentions that word pteridophyte, since I find it throughout the work quite easily, as on p7 (3rd ed.): "Pteridophytes show the closest analogy with the similar processes among the lower Spermatophytes..." In the latter part of that sentence, Selaginella and Azolla are included among the heterosporous pteridophytes, manking the scope of that term clear. I do not find the phrase "seedless vascular plant" in the work at all.

Oh, and if the wording of the Bryophyte page horrifies you, you have only yourself to blame, since the wording was put there by yourself: [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You assume wrong. Campbell means Neil Campbell (Biology, Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece, Steven A. Wasserman, Robert B. Jackson), as I assumed would be clear from the context. As for "Horrified", this was a word I used by way of being arch, as I assumed would be clear from the context. Your response seems a bit strident, and ingenuous as far as nuance goes. We may have a bit of a communication problem here. In any case, the actual issues remain, which include, among others, the burning question of whether pteridophyte is the most appropriate name for seedless vascular plants, and how the page should be edited to better explain the concept.Michaplot (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What context? You said "Campbell" with no title, date, or other context. The other works you appelaed to were the Britannica and Judd's Plant Systematics. I had no means of guessing that you meant the general biology textbook. I still don't see why you think there is a "burning" issue, especially when the second volume of Flora of North America carries the title "Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms". "Pteridophytes" is still an extremely common word in the literature for the "ferns and fern allies". Which part of the general page on all of plant biology needs to explain this concept? And why do you insist that "seedless vascular plants" is synonymous with "pteridophyte" (it isn't; there are non-vascular fossil pteridophytes). --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Further reading ...

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)

No, there is no such book extant. Most "comprehensive" books on plants either limit themselves to a single group (mosses, ferns, conifers, etc) or treat a floristic region (and cover only vascular plants). There has also been so much change in high-level plant classification recently that any such book older than 20 years would be very outdated -- even the "classes" and orders of flowering plants have undergone enormous change in circumscription. The best I can suggest are (1) van den Hoek's Algae, which will cover the green algae and charophytes, (2) Schofield's Introction to Bryology, which is dated but does a good job of surveying the major groups, (3) Robbin C. Morran's A Natural History of Ferns, which skimps on the "fern allies", but is up-to-date on the phylogenetics even if it does treat the subject generally, (4) Raven, Evert, & Eichhorn's Biology of Plants, which will fill in a decent survey of extant pteridophytes and gymnosperms, (5) Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants for the major extinct groups. There is no general text I'd recommend for current angiosperm diversity, although there are a number of textbooks and lab books that do a fair job of treating the major families (e.g. Cronquist, Zomlefer, or Heywood), but you have to bear in mind that the families and relationships have changed a bit since they were published. Cronquist in particular is very out of step with our current understanding of angiosperm classification. Dahlgren's works do a decent morpholocial and chemical survey of the monocots. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fungi are not plants

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)

Most people think that fungi are plants, so a note to the reader that they are covered in a separate article would be appropriate. But not an extended amount of material. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here: Talk:Plant/Archive 1#Fungi section. I agree with Kingdon's assessment that the current text is the perfect level of detail for this article. It could use some references, but it should remain in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It shows that this has been discussed before and that the keepers were a minority, then as now. --Ettrig (talk) 16:49, 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)

Historically, Linnaeus classified all fungi in kingdom vegetabilia. I suppose some people might still consider them "plants". Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Viridiplantae into this article

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)

Inconsistent nomenclature

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)

Chlorophyta should probably mean the clade, exclusive of the streptophytes. Charophyta should mean the streptophytes excluding the embryophytes; this would make a paraphyletic group, but the higher classification of the "charophytes" doesn't have a consistent and widely-accepted set of names, or even agreement on the clades yet. I can't respond to what you mean by "stoneworts", since that would exclude most charophytes as I use that term (e.g. desmids). --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice that you have used the word "should"; I'm in the same position and this is the source of some of my difficulty. You and I have discussed this before, but now there really needs to be some resolution, otherwise the Plant article (with or without later splits as per the discussion at Talk:Viridiplantae) is in serious difficulties. Like you, I believe I understand how the terms should be used. For example, the cladogram below shows the Lewis & McCourt (2004) classification. This is a bit out of date according to Becker & Marin (2009), but not seriously so, and it's the latest Linnaean classification I can find (Becker & Marin, like most recent work, is strictly cladistic). Then the purple bits to the right are how I think Chlorophyta and Charophyta should be used.

Viridiplantae  Division Chlorophyta  about 4 classes of algae Division Charophyta  about 5 classes of algae  Subdivision Streptophytina  Class Charophyceae (stoneworts)  Class Embryophyceae (land plants)

Division Chlorophyta Division Charophyta clade Embryophyta (10 extant Divisions)

The problem is that this must be WP:SYNTH (or even WP:OR), because the traditional uses of Chlorophyta and Charophyta are all defined in the literature before the Lewis & McCourt cladogram, so there is no reference I can find (and I have looked hard) which supports the relationship I have drawn above. Is there one?

So can I use it in the article (or the spun-off article as per your suggestion at Talk:Viridiplantae)? If not, we simply can't define the way in Chlorophyta and Charophyta are used in the Plant taxobox, which is utterly unsatisfactory.

(Another approach seems to be to use "Streptophyta" as a clade name for Lewis & McCourt's Charophyta and "Charophyta" for their Streptophytina. Further "Charophyta" has been used for the stoneworts alone – or so it says in the Charophyta article, though it isn't referenced. Sigh...) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution as progress

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)

That last sentence did strike me. I think moss would reject that you have to be tall to be a success in this universe, regardless the empirically grounded comparisons promised by that stuff about "most measures". I agree with you, is what I'm saying, and I will make the deletion for now.-Tesseract²(talk) 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten about this and my intention to edit the paragraph. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List in lede

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)

I agree that the list in the lead is not quite right, but I don't think that you can write "familiar organisms .. such as gymnosperms". "Gymnosperm" isn't a familiar term to most readers (and glossing it as "conifers and cycads" is not really a great improvement; cycads are not familiar to readers outside the tropics). What about some variant of "... such as [[flowering plant]]s of all kinds – [[tree]]s, [[herbaceous plant|herb]]s, [[Shrub|bushes]], [[vine]]s and [[grass]]es, as well as [[moss]]es and [[green algae]]." The list does not have to be inclusive, just to explain to the general reader what the article is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead (talk • contribs)

I think most readers will understand that everything from flowering plants to mosses are plants, it's the bit about green algae being in the plant kingdom that is less understood. I'm not committed to any particular taxa being in the list. I do want to avoid using "flowering plant" to mean garden flowers and wild flowers, as opposed to trees, bushes, and grass. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We agree; so what wording do you suggest? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can leave out mention of the cycads, gingko, horsetails, stoneworts, liverworts, etc. Some people, however, may remember when fungi and bacteria were included in the Plant Kingdom, so maybe it needs to be mentioned that they are no longer included. "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[flowering plant]]s, [[conifer]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]], but do not include [[fungi]] and [[bacteria]]." Unfortunately, "conifer" redirects to Pinophyta, which I suspect is familiar to very few people. Also, are brown and red algaes included as "plants" in this article? I'm no clear which sensu the article adopts. Kelp may be familiar enough to most people to be worth mentioning. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brown and red algae belong to other groups in modern classifications systems, and are not included within the WP definition of "Plant". However, red algae might end up back in the definition of "plant" because of their close relationship, and because of some rumblings in the systematics community to consider the idea. Brown algae won't ever return unless either (1) fungi and animals are included, or (2) monophyly as a criterion is tossed out the window. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be wary of "ever"; there are supported phylogenies in which the Chromalveolata and Archaeplastida form a clade (see the second diagram at Eukaryotes#Expanded Chromalveolata). The truth seems to be that at present the deep phylogeny of the eukaryotes is very uncertain. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case, we maybe should add that Kelp (or maybe, "most seaweed") is not in the Plant Kingdom. -- Donald Albury 14:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems fine to me: "Precise definitions of the kingdom vary, but as the term is used here, plants include familiar organisms such as [[flowering plant]]s, [[conifer]]s, [[fern]]s, [[moss]]es, and [[green algae]], but do not include [[seaweed]]s like [[kelp]], nor [[fungi]] and [[bacteria]]." I'm going to be WP:BOLD and put this in the article; it can still be changed, but it's better than what is there now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Should it be "..., nor fungi and bacteria" (as I've put) or "..., nor fungi or bacteria"? (The "nor" is there to stop "seaweeds like kelp, fungi and bacteria" being read as if fungi and bacteria were seaweeds".) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "nor ... or ..." but that's just what sounds better to me. the rest is fine. -- Donald Albury 00:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

innacurate opening

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)

The key word is "traditionally". When I was in high school we were still being taught that all living things were either animals or plants, although the texts did admit that Euglena was a problem, as it was both self-mobile and had chlorophyll. -- Donald Albury 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clearer if "all living things are" is changed to "all living things were". Rkitko ^(talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't YOU change it? Hello! Cadiomals (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 13 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)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

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)

Request rejected. It's unclear where you want this information inserted and whether you have references for the assertions. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)