Talk:ABC model of flower development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Class E[edit]

"In 2004 the characterization of sepallata1,2,3 triple mutant in Arabidopsis has led to the formulation of the ABCE model, which consider the importance of class E genes for the development of the floral organs."

Could somebody find the reference for this please, as it would greatly enhance this article, and I would personally be interested to read about it. Thank you. Zsingaya 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't the title of this page be "ABC model of flower development" rather than "ABC Model of Flower Development" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)? Kingdon (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Haughn and Somerville[edit]

The ABC Model of flower development was first proposed by George Haughn and Chris Somerville in 1988. Genetic control of plant morphogenesis. Developmental genetics 9:73-89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


Most of the intro has been copied to Plant development. --Ettrig (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The plant development article should have a summary of the content here, not a copy. This is the primary article on the subject of the ABC model. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. The intro should be a summary. So what is the problem? --Ettrig (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You mean, besides the copying without attribution to the source, your typos, and failure to summarize? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not a mind reader, especially not when the target is at an unknown place probably far from me. So I answered about the problem that you thought you saw and commented, lack of summary. Since the intro should be a summary, copying the intro should result in putting in place a summary. If you don't think it is a proper summary, then you can of course improve it. But the problem you are then fixing is not mine. Wikipedia:Splitting says attribution can be made in the edit summary. That is what I did. So neither do I understand your complaint about without attribution. --Ettrig (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)