Talk:Plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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 / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

innacurate opening[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Diseases, pests, and propagation[edit]

As a gardener (of flowers, vegetables, and fruit) I find Wikipedia invaluable. But the format currently adopted does not usually refer to diseases, pests, and methods of propagation (and what to do about the first two). Of course one can get something on the internet about all this. But for commonly grown plants a standard format which included these as separate sections would be very useful. --Markd999 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is why you won't find information that describes how to propagate or what to do if a disease or pest is found. Some articles do include descriptions of pests and diseases that typically afflict certain plants, but we must use reliable sources that contain this information as our references. Rkitko (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Understanding horticulture

Horticulture is a term that evokes images of plants, gardening, and people working in the horticultural industries.[5] For the public, and policy makers, the term is not completely understood nor is its impact on human activities been fully appreciated.[5] Horticulture impacts widely on human activities, more than its popular understanding as merely "gardening" would indicate. It needs to be recognised as a matrix of inter-relating areas that overlap, with complex inter-relationships. A wider and more accurate definition will communicate effectively the importance of plants, their cultivation and their use for sustainable human existence. The popular "gardening activity" sense fails to convey the important role that horticulture plays in the lives of individuals, communities and human societies as a whole. Describing its impact on the physiological, psychological and social activities of people is key to expanding our understanding; however "the cultivation of a garden, orchard, or nursery" and "the cultivation of flowers, fruits, vegetables, or ornamental plants" as well as "the science and art of cultivating such plants" [6] will suffice to sketch the outline of a short description. Relf (1992)[7] expanded the traditional understanding of horticulture beyond “garden” cultivation. Tukey (1962)[8] gave an overview of those involved in the field of horticulture, in stating that there are those who are concerned with the science or biological side, those concerned with the business side and finally those who are concerned with the home or art side, who enjoy plants simply for the satisfaction they get from them. Primarily it is an art, but it is intimately connected with science at every point.[9] Relf highlighted the fact that, in limiting the definition of horticulture severely limits an understanding of what horticulture means in terms of human well-being.[10] Relf provided a comprehensive definition of horticulture as; the art and science of plants resulting in the development of minds and emotions of individuals, the enrichment and health of communities, and the integration of the “garden” in the breadth of modern civilisation.[7] In addition, Halfacre and Barden (1979),[11] Janick and Goldman (2003).[12] further extended the scope of horticulture when they agreed that the origins of horticulture are intimately associated with the history of humanity and that horticulture encompasses all life and bridges the gap between science, art and human beings. This broader vision of horticulture embraces plants, including the multitude of products and activities (oxygen, food, medicine, clothing, shelter, celebration or remembrance) essential for human survival; and people, whose active and passive involvement with “the garden” brings about benefits to them as individuals and to the communities and cultures they encompass (Relf, 2002;[7] Relf and Lohr, 2003 [13]).

It can be concluded that horticulture happens when people are in intimate, intensive contact with plants. It is the interface between people and plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.40.112 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013[edit]

My contribution no longer requires Microsoft Silverlight. T.M.Jones (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Right now that link isn't working for me at all - it's giving me an error about HTML. For right now I'm not going to change anything, hopefully it will work better for another editor... --ElHef (Meep?) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done for now: I get the error "HTML5 PivotViewer - Error loading CXML Collection - URL : http://www.herbarium2.lsu.edu/aca/C747.cxml - Status : 0 Details : Pivot Viewer cannot continue until this problem is resolved" from http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/aca/ which I presume is the link you are referring to, from your previous addition to Botany. Feel free to reactivate the request if the content becomes accessible. Thanks. Begoontalk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request June 11, 2013[edit]

Requesting that this line: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.

be changed to this: Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, carbon dioxide, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.

The concentration of carbon dioxide is vital for and directly related to plant growth; the greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the faster the growth until other factors such as plant type and other nutrients' availability limit it. Thus, carbon dioxide should be included in the list of environmental factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This seems a good point, so I have made the edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Vegetation as Seen by Suomi NPP[edit]

Would one of the images located here or here be useful for illustrating worldwide plant distribution? Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Divisions - So seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?[edit]

So in the side menu to the right of the page, under the heading of "Land plants" it is listed this way:

Land plants (embryophytes)

Non-vascular land plants (bryophytes)

  •Marchantiophyta—liverworts
  •Anthocerotophyta—hornworts
  •Bryophyta—mosses
  •†Horneophytopsida

Vascular plants (tracheophytes)

  •†Rhyniophyta—rhyniophytes
  •†Zosterophyllophyta—zosterophylls
  •Lycopodiophyta—clubmosses
  •†Trimerophytophyta—trimerophytes
  •Pteridophyta—ferns and horsetails
  •†Progymnospermophyta

Seed plants (spermatophytes)

  •†Pteridospermatophyta—seed ferns
  •Pinophyta—conifers
  •Cycadophyta—cycads
  •Ginkgophyta—ginkgo
  •Gnetophyta—gnetae
  •Magnoliophyta—flowering plants

So... seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.145.148 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Layout problem[edit]

After the text,

  A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae, after Kenrick and Crane,[24] is as follows, with    
  modification to the Pteridophyta from Smith et al.

at the bottom of the article, the following table is showing me gibberish with lots of 'expansion depth exceeded' messages.

Seen In Chromium browser (v 31.0.1650.63 )

87.127.79.193 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I believe the problem was a recent edit to {{Clade}}, diff. I'm not an expert in template editing, but after the edit was undone, the tree on this page was restored with no "expansion depth exceeded" errors. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What is source for "300–315 thousand species of plants"?[edit]

I can't find a source for this 300–315 figure, and the given ref says 321,212.[1] Another ref says 400,000.[2]

Edit request- October 21, 2014[edit]


The text in section 1.3 of the article, "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.", is not cited.
Would somebody please cite it for me? The corrected text would be as follows: "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.[citation needed]".
Thank you. 99.120.10.54 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a citation. You can read more about that at the Fungus page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)