From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Flower is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
How to Archive

Incorrect Labeling of Lillium longiflorum[edit]

I was just viewing the image of the flower, and that if the filament (4) of the stamen is labeled seperatly to the stamen(3) it gives the false impression that the filament is seperate to the stamen, where as the stamen is actually made up of the anther and the filament. So I would propose that (3) should be changed from stamen to anther. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregshallard (talkcontribs) 07:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New Image[edit]

I removed the newly added close-up of a cactus flower, and put it on the Cactus page, where it shows well the large numbers of stamens, and relates to another image on the page. I think this page needs something else, because of all the blank space to the right of the index, but not a close-up in particular. KP Botany 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that there is more on this page on human uses for flowers, than there are about flowers themselves! Personally, I think it would be helpful to list the various different kinds of flowers, with a short list of examples of each type. Did you know that flowers use sexual reproduction and not asexual reproduction 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "various different kinds"? There are many different ways to characterize flowers.--Curtis Clark 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, stop with the Ga thing. i do agree with you about adding more parts of a flower. it might be better for all the kids out there to see all the parts of a plant, the stamen, pistil, petals, leaves, roots, ovary, ovule and so on. Think about the kids out there who need this info. and why cant PARTS OF A FLOWER show up when i search it on the search bar. im new here so i dont know a lot of the buttons or anything. :0 ps: it might be a good idea to list more of the different types of flowers, and when u click on them, it could tell u about each flower (thinkin bout all the kids, gotta think bout the kids) :0 Kids will lead the nation so help them all you can. Flowers are pretty — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

bobby [nb 1]

External Link[edit]

I would like to recommend for external link. It gives the users a wide collection of Indian flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksridher (talkcontribs) 02:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend to be considered for an external link. It has alot of good information on flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaiblatif (talkcontribs) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I Would like the website of to be considered for an "External Link"

The website provides PIPIS I DONT CARE ABOUT FLOWERS free flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages

I feel the website will be useful for Wikipedia users

Eaglesnap 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! --NoahElhardt 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I Would like the website of to be considered for an "External Link" is a useful data.

The website provides flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages.


The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! Latulla 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to recommend be added as an external link pertaining to the 'Uses by Humans' section. The site is non-commercial and contains more than 1000 posts about the impact and uses of flowers in societies and cultures from around the world. It is well referenced with properly cited sources. Camillia 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also "External link" in this page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Flowers are nice and pretty and obviously the best out of all of the nature system. They have a various feature that keeps them well civilised just like humans...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to "Everyday Uses" List[edit]

I am surprised that in the list of the uses of flowers in "Everyday Life", "romantic gifts" is not listed as a category, when this is surely one of the biggest reasons people buy flowers. I know that corsages are mentioned,YOU DONT HAVVE TO BUT ALL YOU DO IS NOT DO ANYTHING, but these are quite distinct uses. Can romantic gifts be added to the bullet point lis

Lacks a lot of citations[edit]

That pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. Lots of good statements without source citing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjuarezr (talkcontribs) 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


I reverted "Rec0io-9000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ent DNA analysis has determined that the oldest surviving flowering plant species is Amborella trichopoda on the Pacific island of New Caledonia." As written, it is patently false: DNA evidence could never show that it is the oldest species, since it could be a recent speciation in an otherwise extinct lineage, and the DNA evidence would be the same. I suspect the editor wanted to comment on the age of the lineage, but even there it is tricky: the lineage of all angiosperms except the Amborella lineage is exactly the same as the age of the Amborella lineage. The most accurate way to put it is that Amborella is the sister group to all the rest of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The solution here was not to reverse, but to reword. This species has in fact been placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree of the angiosperms. A reference was cited, but none for the reversion. Reword, don't revert. Tmangray 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it. The species cannot possibly be placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree. The species is extant today, and there is no evidence at all whatsoever that the same species existed back in the mid-Cretaceous or whenever. It's the lineage that's old, and it is no more or less correct to say that it is at the base of the tree than it is to say that the lineage of the rest of the angiosperms is at the base of Amborellas tree. I reworded your restoration to make this all clear.--Curtis Clark 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I accept the rewording, but the species, or the language about being basal is from the researchers. Of course, the species extant today is not exactly like whatever existed those millions of years ago, but relative to other species, it is apparently less changed, and thus provides valuable clues and information about the transition from non-flowering to flowering plants. Tmangray 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, many researchers use language that obscures, rather than clarifies, the import of their discoveries. I agree that Amborella provides valuable clues—in fact, its importance is difficult to overestimate—but the "less changed" part is something that can and must be described on a feature-by-feature basis, using the principles of outgroup comparison.

An analogy would be to say that the first birds looked like crocodiles, since the crocodylians are the sister group to the birds/dinosaurs. Fortunately, there are fossils that, by their morphology, seem to just precede the croc-dino split, and they look like neither crocs nor dinos. But it's the morphology of the crocs, especially their plesiomorphies (as well as the plesiomorphies of the dinos) that allow us to assign the fossils to just before the split. So in a sense, Amborella is the crocodile of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 03:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarracenia picture[edit]


Sarracenia has a very distinct and peculiar flower anatomy (style). Maybe a more "conventional" flower would be more useful. What do you think about something more like this Fritillaria? Aelwyn 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the Sarracenia flower diagram to show its unusual characteristics, and was surprised when it was placed on the flower page. I agree that a more typical flower would be better. While I would prefer a dicot (monocots are over-used in this context), anything that has all of the flower parts clearly labeled would be fine by me. I just haven't had the time to put together another well-made picture/diagram. If you do, please feel free. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified flower[edit]

Flower wild purple unknown.jpg

I saw this flower on the forest floor at about 800ft elevation in Portland, OR. Wondering if anyone knows what it might be? I assume it's a wild flower, thought it might be an orchid or iris but doesn't really look quite like either. If you know, feel free to add to the description. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Genus is Trillium Aelwyn 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphology section > Include Penduncle with Pedicel[edit]

As long as the page is very detailed, would it make sense to add Peduncle in Morphology? Wouldn't the stem of a flower be the named "pedicel", but with the exception that its not a single flower on a single stalk? If that's right, not all flowers are on pedicels, but only flowers that are part of an inflorescence. Did I get that right? : - ) ... For example, the flower of a Trillium is not on a pedicel, because its a single flower on the stem.... Check it out and post feedback. Mdvaden 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle holds one flower, when the inflorescence is composed of two or more flowers the peduncle is the stem that holds the pedicels that attaches to the single flowers. 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle is the stem of an inflorescence, not of a flower. I suppose in the case of a solitary inflorescence, the inflorescence could be composed of a single flower.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good case for some good diagrams, as Curtis Clark says a peduncle is the stem that holds the inflorescence to a main stem, I was working from the other direction and that is not as clear. If the plant only produces single flowers then its termed a peduncle like in a number of the monocots. Another term that some what relates is a scape, which can be thought of as a modified peduncle rising from the ground with reduced leaves. Hardyplants 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. My college text book for horticulture, listed a single stem for a single flower as a peduncle. Maybe the definition changed, although I found two online references yesterday mentioning that a singled stemmed flower had a peduncle.
The diagrams you suggested would be handy to add. The resouces I found, indicated that Curtis Clark is right about a peduncle being the stem of an inflourescence, but added further that a peduncle is the stem of a single flower.
At least this one should be easier to figure out than my quest to learn what the lilies were I saw in the Darlingtonia bog this week. I thought they were just lilies, until the brochure asked a question that implied they were the Darlingtonia flowers. But it seems that they are a different lily, also orange red. Mdvaden 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's one example of an older document, in case definitions changed: Harvard Univertity / Arnold Arboretum Document from 1940
Recent Resource: University of Delaware Botanical Mdvaden 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Morphology > Add "Sessile" ??[edit]

In Morphology - aside from the Peduncle matter - the section seems to imply that every flower is on a pedecil. What about flowers that are "sessile"? Would that be a good spot to mention sessile for a distinction? Mdvaden 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sessile is not really a morphological organ per-say but describes how the organ is attached, adding that flowers that do not have pedicils or peduncles are joined to the stem or branch with out stems are sessile would be useful, some inflorescences are composed completely of sessile flowers, like many 'mints' with verticels. Hardyplants 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful that this page does not get bogged down in to many terms, there are a few hundred words used to describe flower parts and how they are placed and develop on the plant. Hardyplants 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no need to bog down, and if not all flowers are on pedicils, then the phrase should be changed, maybe in a simple way like you suggested. I didn't think that more info was needed, just clear and accurate info. That's the tricky thing about info - the less there is, the easier it is to be accurate. But accuracy is the aim. Thanks for reading the note. Mdvaden 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Why this site has been removed repeatedly from External links? I think that there isn't any reason, if so I'll add the site again! Please reply if you know any reason. 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Marco Colli

There are many hundred websites that have pictures of flowers on them, and many that have more and properly ID'd plants. These type of links do not really help us in describing the subject matter, it appears semi-commercial in nature, also it has in correct information... the picture for Alchemilla alpina does not show the flowers of Alchemilla - though there are some leaves in the lower right side that are from a Alchemilla species. Hardyplants 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a commercial site because it doesn't sell photos or plants... then a mistake can occur because the site accepts users's share (as wiki). However the flower Alchemilla alpina was classified by a botanist (then what flower is it?). Finally I do not know many sites with hundreds photos of wild flowers: can you tell me some? [Thanks for reply and... excuse my bad English] 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Marco Colli
It's a commercial site because it hosts Ads by Google. Having a Wikipedia link directs traffic to it, which financially benefits the site owner. That means it must meet a higher standard in terms of relevance--it needs to provide something that no other link can provide, that relates directly to the article, and that doesn't duplicate information already in the article.--Curtis Clark 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A new version has been released. There's only an Ad by Google on the lateral menu which lets the site survive. Then, there are a lot of flowers classified. I think that this is a useful resource for wikipedia users. Will the site be listed on Wikipedia if I remove the Ads by Google? If no, why? Or alternatively, can I add the site to References? Thanks.
I've also noticed that there's an external link ("Oily Fossils Provide Clues To The Evolution Of Flowers") to and this site is full of ads! Does it meet a higher standard in terms of relevance? I think it doesn't: it's only an article, flowers-pho is a whole site. (edit) There's onother site with ads:

Evolutionary Bias?[edit]

Err, folks, to my understanding, wikipedia attempts to be an organized collection of facts. If I am wrong on that matter please inform me. As I can not have replies before I write the comment, I will continue under the assumption stated in the first sentence. So now I wonder why you have evolutionary information on flowers in here. It should at least be labeled as theoretical information: not fact. If you can prove that the evolution section in the article is true beyond a shadow of a doubt or point me to someone who already has, not only will I be thoroughly impressed, then I would see no problem with it being labeled as fact. As this has not been done insofar as I noticed, I believe there need to be changes made. As I am not particularly knowlegeable on the subject of flowers and came to wikipedia for information on the aforementioned subject, I do not believe I can make adequate changes. Please get back to me or make a move in a neutral direction or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helk62 (talk

This article is in the area of botany, which is a science, and science doesn't deal with "true beyond a shadow of a doubt," but only with observations of the physical universe. KP Botany 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Science, by definition, does not give or look for any absolute truth, as religion does. Science only tries to give problems the explanation that seems more reasonable and that rises the fewer other questions only using the poor and uncertain data we can detect with our senses (physical quantities). Any explanation that involves a supernatural force must then be rejected by science, in the end, because of the very nature of it. We cannot really believe in science, as it explains us many things, but does not deal with any real truth. On the other hand, we cannot use religion to solve scientific problems. When an apple falls we say it was because of the gravity, but in fact it is the opposite: we invented gravity because apples used to fall and keep falling. It explained and keeps explaining our experience very well. We invented evolution because it explained many things and we still talk about it (or "believe" in it) because it keeps explaining more and more. I'm a science student and an agnostic, I think evolution really happened and that it is still happening, just because it seems a very reasonable and elegant explanation to me. If you try to understand what I mean (apart from my laughable English), you will. If you don't want to, please stop bothering. Comments are welcome. Aelwyn 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the enlightening edits gentlemen. --Helk62 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. KP Botany 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I get it now! Aewyn says that "we invented gravity." Makes perfect sense now! Perhaps that's why all the dinosaurs became extinct, because we humans had not yet invented gravity, and they all just floated away from the planet! Thank YOU for your perfect logic. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

image of rare flowers[edit]

I agree we need a higher quality picture. You have a great and rare subject with this plant and if the picture was of higher quality, it would deserve a place on this page, but the image is washed out and low in resolution. I would fix it my self if I thought I could improve it, but I fear I can't.Hardyplants 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Hardyplants and Fir0002 Aelwyn 06:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Morphology section[edit]

I think a subsection explaining floral diagrams and their use should be added, see as an example : de:Blütendiagramm. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a flower diagram

The current diagram lacks marking for the pistil, which is a notable impediment to undertanding. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead illustration[edit]

Although no one has come up with a fully satisfactory lead illustration for this article, the one recently added by User:Alvesgaspar is especially unfortunate, in that it consists mainly of capitula of Asteraceae (making it even harder to convince amateurs that the capitulum is an inflorescence, not a flower), and even the two single-flower examples are radially symmetric, with showy petals. It would really be better to have but a single example than to imply that this image is in any way representative of the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the addition, but Curtis Clark has a very good point, daises are not really flowers but collections of small flowers. Also many plants do not have flowers that are large and showy - there is much greater diversity in real flowers than what is shown and its currently deceptive with all the "daisy" like flowers. Its pretty but not illustrative of the subject. Hardyplants (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are right, the main intent of the illustration is aesthetical, please fell free to replace it with a better one, Anyway I'll try to compile a new and more representative poster with my limited gallery of flowers (mostly Asteraceae, I'm afraid) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not use images from Wikimedia Commons? They all have licensing appropriate to that use. Your basic layout idea is a good one; it just needs better examples.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What do you think now? Twelve flowers of different families, most of them wild, and only two inflorescences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and I really like the arrangement of colors. The article still needs some examples of wind-pollinated flowers without petals—I'll hunt some up—but this makes a nice lead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So nobody has noticed the last, somewhat crazy change to the lead image? Its been there for two months now. -- Solipsist (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Hohum has changed the lead image back again. A little slow, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't completely broken after all. -- Solipsist (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

adding a new language[edit]

This is not allowed to edit this page, then how to add an article in some other language? I wanted to add this: fa:گل گیاه --Iranway (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it for you[1], semi protection does not allow a new account to edit for a few days, but after you'l be able to. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gardening Terminology[edit]

I know its probably not purely scientific, but I was surprised there was no definition of "annuals" and "perennials", which are common terms among people planting gardens. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I added links for perennial and biennial, but there's a bunch of other terminology that's much more obscure. Another article mentions "salverform" flowers, which are also mentioned here without explanation. I'm not sure of the best place to put definitions for these. Bennetto (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Depends... If in doubt, make entries in Glossary of botanical terms; then other folks cn expand them into articles if necessary. If OTOH, you have substantial material to publish, you can simply create new sections in Flower or new articles. JonRichfield (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


I propose that the floral development section be moved further up the article. It doesn't make much sense why pollination and everything else is in sections before floral development. Since this is a big change I thought I'd see if the consensus was with me? Million_Moments (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

flowers usage[edit]

Original - Indian female hand putting flowers on a Lingam in a ghat in Varanasi, India

Someone should add that flowers are widely used as a gift to gods in India and Nepal. A good example is the picture. Yosarian (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same section, in the paragraph which discusses the edibility of flowers, I suspect conscious intent in the phrasing of the section in parentheses:

"Some edible flowers are sometimes candied such as daisy and rose (you may also come across a candied pansy)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Wording[edit]

There is poor wording in one of the image captions. "Bee orchid evolved to mimic a female bee to attract male bee pollinators" should be changed to "Bee orchid has evolved to mimic a female bee to attract male bee pollinators". It wasn't "designed". :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, bees are Social insects, the males stay inside the hive, and the queen is the only one that can reproduce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennificus (talkcontribs) 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) for proposing a girl the flower is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism - Wordsworth's poem[edit]

I believe the title of the referenced poem by William Wordsworth is "Daffodils". The line "I wandered lonely as a cloud" is actually the first line of the poem. Reference: The New Oxford Book of English Verse (composed and edited by Helen Gardner) - Reprint of 1985. Page 506.

I know next to nothing about this poem, but the wiki page for the poem [2] suggests that the name is "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud" and that it is erroneously referred to as "The Daffodils". It doesn't really expand or reference that though and there's some confusion about it on the talk page... Ribrob (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanings of flowers[edit]

I proposed the merge since the fork doesn't meet most of the WP:SPLIT criteria, and the article itself is in some need of tone cleanup that could better be accomplished here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Meanings of flowers falls within the Symbolism section of flower, and adds little to what's already there. ENeville (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Grammar - Correction Suggestion[edit]

This sentence...

"The grouping of flowers on a plant are called the inflorescence." 

in the first paragraph should read...

"The grouping of flowers on a plant is called the inflorescence."

Subject of sentence is grouping (singular), not flowers (plural); verb should agree with subject. (funny thing is that I can find no definitive answer to whether or not my intuition is correct on this... however the sentence as it currently appears makes me cringe... so does that count for anything?)

Flickr Addict (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As a self-appointed (is there any other kind?) member of the grammar police, I favor your version. But this case might not be a clear cut as all that. It might have to do with which side of the "pond" you happen to be on. I understand that while Americans would say, for example, "The company is ...," the British would say, "The company are ..." (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Edit request from Karl jv, 6 July 2010[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Add link to in the section about flowering?

Karl jv (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mithunkundu1983, 1 September 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} ==Gallery==

Mithunkundu1983 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please read WP:COI and WP:IG. Even without the advertizing, the images would need to be captioned and add to the readers understanding of the subject of the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I have noticed that this page is sorely in need of revision and improvement. I have begun the process. There is much to improve on this page, including correcting arrantly incorrect information, improving writing, reorganizing subsections, removing repetitive bits and checking for consistency with other related pages. Any comments appreciated.Michaplot (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sepal misspelled as septal on Mature Flower Diagram[edit]

Hi, this has been mentioned on the file talk page [[3]], but sepal is misspelled as septal on the diagram of parts of the flower. Unfortunately I don't have any means to edit an SVG.Keepstherainoff (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I modified the description (by Inkscape) to sepal and uploaded that as a new version of the file.
Thank You Keepstherainoff, that you had brought the request here. It is definitely much more watched place than the page of the file. The correction itself was rather easy think to do. Reo + 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012[edit]

I want to add more information regarding floral formula.

Emeraldroza (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for making specific requests to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be Autoconfirmed or Confirmed--Jac16888 Talk 11:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Anyone know what flower this is? Incorrectly named mostly. Thanks. Écrivain (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Flowers are great gifts for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwalser3944 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


Needs integrating/reconciling/with Plant reproductive morphology#Flowering plants, which maybe should be the 'Main article' since Flower is so overarching --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


Keeping in mind that this is a failed Featured Article candidate (2006), it should be brought up to at least Good Article status. See for instance the German and Spanish articles for guidance. In doing so it needs to be properly integrated with all the relevant subpages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).