I think it's important to note the university that published this research to indicate that this was a serious academic study, but I agree it's not necessary to include the nationality of the researchers. Chefallen (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that researchers at the university published a study (the university doesn't actually do the publishing). Regardless, those news aggregator sources aren't that reliable. And I can't actually find the published study in the Journal of Experimental Biology. Any ideas if it has just not been published yet and the press releases are coming out ahead of publication? --Rkitko(talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've found the source of the news articles is a press release issued by the university  which says the research was published in the Journal of Experimental Biology. Do you have the printed journals for a few months back to check? In any case, it is hard to imagine that an academic institution with an international reputation to protect would fabricate all this even if we can't find the article in the jounal yet. The university itself should be considered a reliable source and based on that, wouldn't you agree the information can be restored? -- Chefallen (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting the university is being dishonest. I was wondering if the article hasn't been published yet; often articles are accepted for publication, but published in the next month's issue. I searched several terms from the study and the authors going back through an entire year, but came up with nothing. You can search if you wish: . Press releases are often written by public relations departments without much input from the scientists who did the studies. Case in point, there's a new study published on the toxic effect of cadmium build-up in insect prey that proved to be lethal to carnivorous plants in the study at certain concentrations. Nowhere in the study did the authors suggest heavy metal build-up from industrial sources or roads was a leading or even contributing cause of world-wide carnivorous plant population decline, but the press releases and subsequent news reports all came to this errant conclusion. This is the primary reason I don't trust press releases - it's much better to go to the original paper and summarize the content. Beyond that, you must be more careful when summarizing sources. Many of the phrases from your contributions to this article came directly from the sources you cited. You can't just rearrange phrases and use synonyms as this is still copyright infringement or plagiarism; it's imperative that you write in your own words. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The confusion was apparently over the name of the journal; the research has been published in the Journal of Experimental Botany, here:  -- Chefallen (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"The final carnivore with a pitfall-like trap is the bromeliad Brocchinia reducta. Like most relatives of the pineapple, the tightly-packed, waxy leaf bases of the strap-like leaves of this species form an urn. In most bromeliads, water collects readily in this urn and may provide habitats for frogs, insects and, more useful for the plant, diazotrophic (nitrogen-fixing) bacteria."
Habitats?? That implies they live there, in some sort of symbiosis. If the plant eats frogs and insects, then I think "habitats" would be inappropriate. I left it, so others can edit it. Thanks. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)NotWillDecker
As the tomato plant is known to "trap" flies and other insects to utilize from their nutrients, does that make them carnivorous and therefore worth mentioning in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)