Talk:Dioicy

unnecessary title and redirect

Why redirect Dioicy to Dioicy (botany)? There is no other kind of dioicy, so the redirect is completely unnecessary. Plantsurfer 16:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t why dioicy was redirected to monoicy to be honest. I honestly assume it might be due to an article being too small.CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

I found another source that might be useful for this article. [| Right here].CycoMa (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dioicy as the ancestor

I’m seeing a good amount of reliable sources mentioning it is the ancestral state. So if you have an issue that mention please discuss it here.CycoMa (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral state for what group? And what is your source? Plantsurfer 20:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer: one source said bryophytes overall.CycoMa (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source? Plantsurfer 21:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer: [| This book] on page 71.CycoMa (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's a little counterintuitive, but the source is good. Plantsurfer 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer: maybe further research on the evolution of dioicy and a rewrite for the evolution section might be a great idea.CycoMa (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]