Talk:Plant

Phyla

This page should have a box on the side listing the different Phyla like the animal page does. --Savant13 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plant Distribution

Distribution is all about plants interaction with humankind, culture and fauna... It's an important theme about plants... So... Don't feel you are correcting anything by taking it out of the page... It's a proper way to further one's understanding of them in relation to us seeing what their distribution is.

I think you are right (Distribution does have a place). The problem is, it is such a broad subject, it is hard to envision how it should be treated in summary form in this article. To do it justice requires a book (or at least another article). I think whomever remarked it out is saying: clean this up ! - Marshman 04:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well... I guess a broad approach to distribution would be based upon taxonomy and common characteristics by which plants can be classified depending on the kind of climate/terrain they inhabit... The number of plant species and varietes per biome or biotope... To give an approximate idea of plant distribution much like some maps give an idea of how many people life in certain areas... Any special plants found alone anywhere in the world being mentioned as extra-facts (maybe some few plants manage to thrive in the cold northernmost sea, the arctic I mean)...

My point. What you have "outlined" could fill a large book. But your idea of classification (largely non-taxonomic) based upon life form by regional climate is a potential approach, but perhaps still too much for general treatment here. Sometimes it is easier to develop the other arrticle and then place her the merest facts with a link - Marshman 01:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen other paes on this kind of matter adress the information on distribution themselves... An address for distribution itelf might exist separately, mentioning disribution of plants and other life which interacts with it...

---

Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification

Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) --mav

Actually, plant nutrition is a two-way street. The photosynthetic formula is that the plant absorbs carbon dioxide and water, and uses sunlight to drive a chemical process that makes sugar and oxygen from them. Human beings do just the opposite -- they take in the sugar and oxygen, reverse the reaction to release energy, and exude water and carbon dioxide. However, plants also absorb nutrients through the roots along with water, and send these throughout the plant's structure. The xylem conducts water and minerals up, the phloem conducts the sugars down. jaknouse 23:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular?

Moved to flowering plant. -Menchi 05:30 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved it back, but now I agree (after reading these comments) it does not belong here. I'll fix. I see there has been a fair bit of discussion about what to include and what not to include on this page. I'm looking things over and I'm inclined to move the back to the Redirect Plantae where it was originally developed as that makes perfect sense botanically. This is a constant problem in natural sciences. There is a "public" perception of what something (like "plant") is, and we tend to want to match that with the article name. But the truth is, these things have been worked out by botanists in ways not necessarily compatible with the common perceptions and we get into trouble trying to satisfy conflicting POVs. I'm sure whoever moved the stuff into Plant was not aware of the conflict that creates because we all think we know what a plant is — how hard can it be to define? But as someone points out and Menchi fixes, the classification of growth does not apply to all plants, and cannot be represented as such. Leaving it here just reinforces the narrow perception that plants are really things like ferns and flowers. I'll work on this problem for awhile. I am cognizant of a need to keep the "public" or common POV right up front. - Marshman 05:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Some stuff moved from botany.

Material to be moved out

This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany

The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted).

• Hepatophyta, liverworts
• Anthocerophyta, hornworts
• Lycophyta, club mosses
• Psilotophyta, whisk ferns
• Sphenophyta, horsetails
• Pterophyta, ferns
• Cycadophyta, cycads
• Ginkgophyta, ginkgo
• Gnetophyta
• Pinophyta, conifers
• Magnoliophyta, flowering plants
  • Liliopsida, monocots
  • Magnoliopsida, dicots

??Will you accept Algae as plants" 81.144.158.195 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why there is the section about fungi since they form the clade Opisthokonta with animals. Fungi being distant relatives of plants just having a section about plants in the article Animal to inform that plants are not animals. AquamarineOnion 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily include it if I were writing the article, maybe a see also, with a note, however I added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue you raise. KP Botany 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have pictures

I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

To be useful, most (but not all) should have a clear image of the flower. Ecceptions might be those with very distinctive foliage or pictures of individual trees. However, even in the latter cases, an image of the flower would usually be required to begin identification. Assuming you have pictures of flowers, you could post them at Flower_album and see if others can identify. That gets them on Wikipedia with your name and notes for others to place in articles as appropriate -- Marshman 17:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay I can do that but what name to give pic1 pic2 etc? Can the names be changed once uploaded and Identified? -- Belizian

No, they are permanent. But the names of the files are the least of our problem. Do not worry. We will just re-upload with the correct names once we find them out. The image is the important part, because they are not easy to get. So, in the mean time, just say "Star-leaved plant 27.JPG" or something descriptive is ok. --Menchi 01:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Be sure to fill in info about the picture on the photo document page. Include photographer credit, date taken, location, etc. info that you can. Then if we move the pictures to new names, we will be able to retain all the important source information at the new name place (so the name itself is really unimportant) - Marshman 01:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [1]. AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If you look at Wikibooks, and find the biology textbook (also somne xchapters of Invert Zoology), you will see something similar to what you suggest that I made for those articles - Marshman 19:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms.

What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a brief introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure.

If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- Josh

Go ahead and write that intro paragraph you think is needed. I do not think it will help completely as long as we have the big section on Kingdom Plantae taxonomy to deal with at the end. I tried to split that out to Kingdom Plantae a while back, but ran into a person that did not want to discuss, just revert, so I gave up. I think the taxonomy IS a bit intimidating and should go where those really interested can enjoy it. Your suggestion may be a better way to arrange the plant page, I really cannot tell without seeing it first. However, I do NOT think there is any concensus about what "plant" means, just what Plantae means, so that problem should be dealt with somewhere, presumably up front (?) - Marshman 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there isn't a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- Josh

---

Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the two sections of the article. The first section, "Difficulties in the Definition", problematizes the definition of "Plant" by exploring the differences between popular definitions of plant and scientific ones. I did think that some of the statements seemed more speculative than factual; how does one know what is not likely ever to happen, or what will always happen? Is it utterly impossible that plant and Plantae might one day mean the same thing? Is it wise to assert that popular and scientific definitions of a thing will always differ? It seemed enough to explain that popular and scientific definitions presently do differ, and why.

Yes. I tried to split these once upon a time, but ran into opposition. I still think there is as place for both plant and Plantae and it makes a lot more sense to split them (Josh and I had worked out the split, at one time); but another argued that they mean the same thing, and threatened to revert if we split the article. I had no problem with your removal of the speculative part, just the algae "example".

The second section presents a straightforward description of current consensus on the classification and evolution of plants. As defined in this section, it is not inconceivable that one could use "plant" and "Plantae" synonymously. One could understand Wikipedia articles to be an effort to popularize scientific knowledge and usage.

I think both sections are good; but they are addressing somewhat different aspects. Of course all Plantae are plants. The problem is, that not all plants are Plantae (the definitions are different). It seems to me you will never get anyone to accept that, in seaweeds for example, green algae are plants and red algae are not. One is Plantae but both are either plants or both are not. The problem is inherent in the fact that people don't think in phylogenic terms, but more in absolutes. But I agree with your premise about Wikipedia, I just do not see it working any time soon with the term "plant" and I'm not convinced it is always a good idea to force (or expect) a match between scientific and common terminologies. I find the concept of standardizing "common names" (as ornithologists have done) a bit arrogant. Common names belong to the social fabric, not the scientists. But I still get upset when a bison is shown on TV and it is called a buffalo. Go figure; no one said I had to be consistent ;^).

Not sure why cladistics are irrelevant to a discussion of defining Kingdom Plantae. As the article says, "we must include some reference to the classification system in any scholarly effort to gain or give information about them". Current phylogeny tends to favor monophyletic clades, which certainly bears on what contemporary classification systems would consider to be a useful and defensible definition of Plantae. If the groups described in the second section of the article are found to be monophyletic, then it strengthens the argument for maintaining the current definition; if the taxon is found to by polyphyletic, then multiple clades will come into use.

Perfectly relevant to the second part on Kingdom Plantae. I think someone moved it down there from where it was floarting in the middle of the "plant" definition section, where it was out of place. I think your additions to the Plantae section have been excellent—well, except maybe the "lichens" part.

With regard to lichens, I introduced the topic with the intent of explaining that lichens are a symbiote between an alga and a fungus, and to describe where the green algal partners fit in the classification system presented in the second section. Alternately, a lichen could be used to illustrate the difficulties of defining "plant". If lichens can appear only one place in the article, I prefer that they appear where I initially placed them, in the section on evolution and classification, so as to de-problematize them to the extent possible. There is of course no reason that they cannot appear in both sections, as an illustration of the difficulties of definition, and further on to explain where the algal partners fit in the plant classification scheme as it is presented in the article. Tom Radulovich 03:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Information I liked. I moved it up and reworded it so it would be an example for the definition section, but then you moved it back down below again (and reworded to better fit there). It does introduce more problems than it solves, however, under Plantae, since lichens really cannot be classified (the partners can individually). I think another party just moved it out to where it would be most appropriate under lichens. Like you said, it could go in all three places and be made appropriate. I was just unclear why you took it out as an example of why "plant" is not easy to define? - Marshman 06:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Added ==Plants as fossils==

Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.

Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are:

• The "common POV" Marshman discusses is not dominant even among popular books, which tend to say that plants produce food through photosynthesis and usually that fungi aren't plants.
• There has not been a single concept of the Plantae. Its composition has changed exactly the same way as that of the plants has, and is still not entirely settled. The differing versions of both are best treated as variations on the same idea.
• Plants are defined less by characters and more by composition. There is a certain core group that everyone includes, the embryophytes (vascular plants leave out moss), and all the definitions are variations on embryophytes and things like them. Plants don't need a hard-and-fast definition, and our focus on it seems uniquely inconvenient.
• In that vein, the vast majority of links and visitors will be assuming this page discusses that core group. Also, future editors, as Tom and Dlloyd prove. As such, discussing that core group is far more important and maintainable than working through the detailed semantics of which other groups to include, and certainly should not be relegated to the second half of the article.
• At the same time, algae and fungi are often considered plants outside of a taxonomic context, so they should be discussed here. I think a brief overview of their similarities and differences relative to the embryophytes does a better job explaining the varying definitions of plant than attempting a thorough enumeration.

It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. Josh 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not respond back because in August I was not working on Wikipedia. But I think the changes you made, while not all "bad" by any means, have just opened this page (article) up to continued problems. The whole idea that the term "plant" has some good match with a taxonomic grouping is simply not the case with our present understanding of the relationships among plant-like organisms. Forcing this fit is what makes problems here. Many of your points above simply miss the mark. For example, the first one: I do not say fungi are always treated as plants, but that they were once (and still are) included within the perview of botanists. In the general mind set, that lists them with plants if not plants themelves. I then pointed out why they might not be plants. Your second point is just confusing: The concept of plants has changed exactly the same way as the concept of plants has?. On your third point: what we had was a broad definition; you changed that to no definition, but a good historical statement. On this point we seem to agree, but you actually moved the text in a direction away from it. On expectations of visitors, I disagree. I think visitors are not expecting a core group but a definition and discussion of what a "plant" is, and why it is not something else (like a fungus as you point out). Emphasizing the difficulty of defining "plant" educates a reader that might have thought it was an easy, straight-forward concept. The "core group" should not even be in the article (although discussed and liberally linked), but elsewhere where a taxonomic approach makes sense. That would clear up the future editing problems. The article is a problem because of a (IMHO) silly Wikipedia concept that common terms should be used everywhere for biological entities, which only makes sense if their is a common term that coincides in boundaries with a taxonomic grouping. Get the "core group" off this page and into its own article(s) like Embryophyta, and this page will return to having meaning instead of being just a confusion. Right now it still implies that "plant" and "Plantae" are the same thing. Sorry, one is a common term and the other a taxonomic grouping. They do not coincide. - Marshman 17:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for rotifers and Rotifera - one is simply a formal version of the other.

I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant embryophytes and things similar to them, and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary it should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it.

Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support.

That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and not just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here.

Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. Josh 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong. I do not "dislike" the way you rewrote the page. I just think it misses some critical points. As for the fungi, I agree, not classified as plants, but certainly considered plants through a long history, and therefore requires here an explain or reason why they are no longer so regarded. The problem with any article based on a common term like plants is that readers come in with all kinds of preconceptions. I'm not saying we need to support all those, but we do need to move them gently in the direction of modern concepts. I have a bigger problem with the seaweeds where I think there is no easy reconciliation. Either seaweeds are plants or they are not. The present situation is that "some of them are".

Someone added some interesting points to the Talk:Flowering plant page with a link to [2] which shows this system of plant classification that makes more sense to me than what we presently are following:

• Living Organisms (clade Biota)
• Eukaryotes (clade Eucarya), i.e. possess a membrane bounded cell nucleus
• Plants (clade Plantae), i.e. possess chloroplasts
• Green plants (clade Viridiplantae) (This article should end here or one level up IMHO)
• Embryophytes or land plants (clade Embryophyta)
• Vascular plants (clade Tracheophyta), i.e. possess tracheids

- Marshman 17:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? Josh 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what the authors meant sensu Plantae regarding chloroplasts. But having that level within Eukaryoytes obviously means there is at least one other group (Prokaryotes) with members that have chloroplasts not in their clade Plantae. I find other subdivisions of chloroplast bearing Eukaryotes a bit specualtive as to when they spilt off and how many endosymbionic events are represented, even though it is firmly established that all higher plants represent only one such evolutionary line (their Viridiplantae). Whether the latter "correspond better with the general concept of plants" indicates you are still trying to match the taxonimic or cladistic approaches to the common term "plant"; and that is where I think things go wrong. Because of historic inclusion of fungi; because of inclusion of all "algae" including some cyanobacteria, in the common sense of "plant" one simply cannot match the term "plant" to a logical scientific concept. Why try to force that fit by saying "plants" are really just "Viridiplantae" or just "Embryophyta"? I say, give the broadest possible definition (sense) of what plants are and then, by reasoning and evidence, show why scientists now regard the true plants to be just a subset of that group. "Plant" is not a common term subject to manipulation and redefining by scientists. "Plants" is plants, and to most people, that includes more than just the "true plants" and more than the "land plants" even though these are the groupings we would agree most people typically refer to as plants.

Of course, this approach requires more than just mentioning embryophtes. It includes all that you say above. What I think we "delete" is just the taxonoic treatment of these higher groups. If you look at the article as I last left it before August, it had a terminating list of links after the "plant definition" section with provided links to all the various groups mentioned. The article should end after that list. All the taxonomy on "true" plants should be moved to articles on Viridiplantae and/or Embryophyta. That way, persons interested in the scientific approach get off on a track that follows current thinking regarding taxonomy and evolution. Persons who still regard mushrooms as a plant form learn first why this may not be a good conceptual approach, but are provided links to the articles on fungi and mushrooms if that be their primary interest. To put another way: a person could be interested in seaweeds and could start at "plants" as a logical entry point. They would find out why all seaweeds might not be true plants, but then find links to the algae and seaweeds to persue their initial primary interest. - Marshman 17:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate.

Discussion of course. Such discussion is essential to an article named "plants" and I certainly did not mean anything like a disambiguation page. I meant end article after the discussion and links, but the discussion should be lengthy and thorough. This is an article on the term "plant" - Marshman

No! This is supposed to be an article about plants, not simply the term. It should be as important, if not more, to explain important aspects of the organisms generally considered plants as it is to explain why certain other groups might or might not be classified with them. In depth systematics of subgroups, among which the embryophytes can now reasonably be counted, should of course go elsewhere but important characteristics, notes about ecology, and things like the fossil section are all entirely appropriate here, even if they don't help define the exact composition of the group.

So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept.

I agree. As to your "on the other hand" - maybe, maybe not. I am uncertain where the spilt should be (see my notes added to the "clasdistics" above). You may well be right that Plantae and Viridiplantae can fit in here strongly. I do think the real taxonomy breakdown of Plantae should be elsewhere in a taxonomy article, but I understand it could be be in more than one place, with simply a more general treatment here. - Marshman

Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either complex multicellular phototrophs, green plants or embryophytes. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria don't have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. Josh 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I saw that "chloroplast" error after I saved my comments, but was unsure what you meant by "chloroplasts" (cholorophyll or actual plastids) so I let it stand. Also, there are green algae that do not fit what you state "most" biologists consider the Kingdom Plantae, and I would argue that biologists do not limit their sense of plants to complex multicellular phototrophs. Quite the contrary, I am a practicing biologist with long previous experience with the algae, and regard all seaweeds (for example) as plants (whether Plantae or not). - Marshman 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry! I simply meant multicellular phototrophs, i.e. including seaweeds - the definition sensu Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like Chlamydomonas. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, some of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). Josh 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a deadline and a stream restoration conference all day tomorrow, so I'll not have time until Wednesday to review what you have done, but the embryophyte article looks good to me. - Marshman 04:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you give up, or are you still planning to make more changes? I find the article confusing as it stands right now. - Marshman 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I gather you gave up. I'm as convinced as ever that this article is just wrong. There is no need to attempt to make "plant" and "Plantae" or "Green plants" match. Botanists do not think they match, so why is this POV pushed here? - Marshman 05:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i reworded a sentence, though perhaps i should have consulted this discussion page first, too late, sorry, buddy-friends... but here's what i did, and the reason why i did it: under "embryophytes" it refered to green algae and said: "plants are distinguished from green algae, from which they evolved, by having a bla bla bla..." i felt it appropriate to clarify that modern plants didn't evolve from contemporaneous modern green algae, but rather evolved from the same thing as green algae, a thing that, it stands to reason, was probably more like green algae than multicellular plants. my rewrite is a bit long-winded, and should probably be rewritten itself, but i believe it is important to clarify that modern things don't evolve from modern things, but share a common ancester, e.g. humans didn't evolve from chipanzees, as commonly mistated, but both evolved from something else, neither Pan nor Homo. i'm new to wikipedia, e-mail me to explain any protocol to follow... slappysallysue@hotmail.com

Reversion of edit

Why was a request for help regarding how to remove a redirect to this page removed by reverting to a previous state?

Sorry, I reverted a typo you made and missed the question you asked at the bottom. My bad. Here is your questions again:

The redirection of Vegetation

Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help...Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC).

Just go to the Vegetation page. It will redirect you right back here, but you will see just below the article title the line "redirected from vegetation". Click on vegetation in that line and it will open up the redirect. You can then edit that page, adding text and deleting the Redirect line—Vegetation will become an article again. You can recover any old text by going to the page history, opening an older version and copying the text to drop into your article. - Marshman 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Plant Defenses to Herbivory

Just as a notice, I am currently working on a full-scale review of plant defenses to herbivory as an additional section to this page that will include an overview of peer-reviewed scientific research in plant defense, historical and present theory, and current studies. I expect to have a draft of the page ready by the beginning of February, and I look forward to members of the national and international community filling in the gaps I may leave out.--Franciepants18 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Are plants sentient and have concious existence do they know that they and other things exist unlike for example a pen-Taracka

If you mean plants "seeing" objects, I highly doubt it. Plants don't have a nervous system. However they can sense and respond to light. For example, auxins and other plant hormones enable plants to react on external conditions and adjust to them. But it's not exactly like the human sensory system. SCHZMO ✍ 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the last reference on Aspects of Plant Intelligence Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Addition to Importance: Plants in Psychology

I remember when I was studying mathematics about the beneficial effects that fractals had on the human mind, as well as a study referenced at one point. Sadly, I don't remember the name or whereabouts of said study, and I don't have access to a scholarly database. I thought I might put the idea out, however, on the positive effects of plants in psychology and that such. Ecopirate 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance and Ecological Relationships sections

I merged part of the Importance section with the Ecological relationships section, then edited and expanded it. The sections overlapped on photosynthesis. The semi-parastic example was changed from eyebright to mistletoe because the eyebright wiki page is a tiny stub. The mistletoe wiki page is a much more informative page. The remainder of the Importance section was expanded and subheadings added. Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some help...

I need information about plants & their nutrients...like How do plants travel through a plant? Where do they come from? where do they go? How does the sun help the plant to grow? Why does a plant need sugar to grow? this are my questions a being looking into every single page about plants & i can't find the answers...thanks...

Sounds like you need someone to do your homework for you first and foremost. I'd start by re-reading what you write : "How do plants travel through a plant?". Your teacher won't be too impressed with this sort of thing. On the off-chance that this is a serious request, you might want to look at the articles on roots, xylem, phloem and photosynthesis (and follow the wikilinks from these where appropriate). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The project

What project maintains this article? Where can i find on Wikipedia a good diagram about the general plant structure that will show me what the major plant's parts are and what their spacial relationship? -- Boris 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

at school we are doing a bush study and we need to find what a plant isi have searched for an hour over the internet but i cant find any infomation can you please help me

Vandalism

After continuous vandalism and nonsense edits over the last 24 hours, I've reverted to the last version that I'm pretty sure was unvandalized, yesterday's version by Eskog. As far as I can tell I'm not deleting any valid edits. MrDarwin 21:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Plant's Fact

How many plant's have been found on 2006?

Also when you are doing a project on plants then what should we chose to do204.210.255.18 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Frank

Internal/External Distribution

I gather that the "Internal Distribution" section refers to allocation, but what does the "External Distribution" refer to? Guettarda 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Food plants for Lepidoptera

Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history. When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal. An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation. The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies. This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete? Lots on Wikipedia is. If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article. There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores. In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied. I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em). I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it. You can't assume it's purposefully not listed. If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops. Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information? KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I think is inappropriate in level of detail, look at Solanum. The information there is inappropriate at this level, since Solanum species are used as food plants by numerous animals, including many mammals, birds, and also many orders of insects, not just the Lepidoptera. That sentence, in its present isolation, implies that there is no other important grazer. It has nothing to say about evolutionary or other relationships, though of course these may be important. Imc 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo. Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus. Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is. I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention. This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus. I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ice plant.......

I have ice plant at home , its very beautiful. Have u ever heard of it? it grows in Winter