Talk:Non-vascular plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Stub-class, Mid-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rank of vascular plants[edit]

The textbox says that vascular plants do not have a rank... this is totally not true, vascular plants are within Subkingdom Bryophyta. Dilbert 00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. The bryophytes are a subgroup of the non-vascular plants, which also includes green algae, and sometimes other groups as well. The group has no official standing in any current classification system, and is no longer considered a formal taxon at any rank. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundant text[edit]

I think it's a bit redundant to explain the difference between vascular and non-vascular plants twice in the intro. Isopropyl 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While I understad what you mean, I can see why the text was originally put in there. The current text talks about algae AND (land plants that lack vascular tissue). That is, the phrase "lack vascular tissue" might be interpreting as only applicable to the land plants that are included, leavin open the question of algae having vascular tissue (if you were coming to this article without knowing much about those "plants"). However, the text you removed should be removed for the more important reason that it was incorrect -- some non-vascular plants do have specialized conducting tissues. Some kelps, mosses, and liverworts have central conducting strands of specialized cells anatomically different from the surrounding tissues. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are algae protist or plants?[edit]

i heard all algae are protist. this need to be researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to research something you heard? Where? From whom? Only grade-school books still use "Protist" as a coherent kingdom. College-level texts reflect current research that algae are not a single related group, but a grab-bag assemblage of unrelated organisms that happen to have chlorophyll. Some of them are plants, some are bacteria, and some belong to other groupings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

i have no time. i was also refering to the general public, not you. also, i heard this out of a high school biology book, and never heard of protist in grade school. and answer questions nicely, not stuck up and snappy. however, thank you for the info.

Whether you read my comments as genuine and educational the way I intended, or choose to believe the answer is stuck up and snappy is entirely your choice. My point is that (1) You posted that you had "heard" something, but did not tell us where you had heard it. Without that information, we cannot check up on the source from which you heard it. Just like any other information posted, we need to know where it comes from in order to check it out. (2) You said research was needed, but did not tell us what you meant by that. Did oyu mean that scientists need to do more resarch to determine the "truth"? Did you mean that people on Wikipedia need to research current the current state of scientific knowledge? Or did you mean something else? Short, terse statements without any context are not helpful stating points for discussion. Add to that the fact that you altered the article based on what you had "heard" without identifying any source. My comments were thus intended to encourage you to question your edit and expand on your original posting. I'm sorry that you took my comments the wrong way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think algae are protists as stated in Modern Biology by: Albert Towle et al.Etineskid (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

notice i refraned from editing any more due to the fact that i could have been wrong. also i did some research myself and found it both ways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.176.94 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The green algae that consist of only one cell are definately not plants, but the rest of the green algae might have some relation with plants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.199.150 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? Why should the number of cells generated to produce a mature form matter in determining evolutionary relationships? All sexually-reproducing plants go through a single-celled stage during their lives. The molecular evidence also demonstrates a close relationship between all the green algae and other plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Uses of nonvascular plants for humans[edit]

What are they?the article doesnt mention any.... Jjohnston90 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither does the article on life. The "non-vascular plants" are a huge assemblage of organisms that are only distantly related and which have little in common other than lacking vascular tissue. A summary of their economic value would not be meaningful. This information is better presented in the article for each natural grouping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-vascular plants have no leaves?[edit]

This may be true (I'm no botanist) but it contradicts the "Moss" article: "...their simple leaves cover the thin wiry stems" —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCooley138 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a different definition of "leaves". The term "leaf" has more than one meaning in botany. Vascular plant anatomists tend to insist that "true" leaves must contain vascular tissue, and that the leaves in mosses therefore don't count. Their rationale is that moss leaves are not homologous to "true" leaves. However, this argument overlooks the fact that vascular leaves have evolved at least three times separately among the vascular plants, so even "true" leaves are not all homologous either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Specialized tissue[edit]

These two lines follow each other in the article, but directly contradict each other. Only one can be true.

...a number of non-vascular plants possess tissues specialized for internal transport of water.
Non-vascular plants means that they do not have specialized tissue.

Something tells me the second is wrong since I can't imagine there exists anything in nature that is non-specialized, but I don't know.--Atkinson (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Some non-vascular plants lack developmentally differentiated tissue, which is part of what the second sentence is about. The "defining" characteristic of the vascular plant clade (according to workers like Kenrick & Crane) is the presence of "true" xylem containing lignin in the secondary wall. It is the presence/absence of this specialized xylem tissue that separates vascular from non-vascular plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My great uncle used to study plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.64.10 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)