From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

IIRC, the petals of the the flowers do not contain chlorophyll. Heliotropism, therefore, seems rather pointless. The flowers do not gain anything from following the Sun and obviously spend some energy. Why do they do that?

In The Private Life of Plants it is shown how the flowers of polar poppy follow the Sun during the polar day. The presenter says that the flowers need the "warmth" and so follow the sun 24 hours a day 360 degrees. He says that this helps to grow the seed in the middle of the flower, but I am not sure it's a fully satisfactory explanation.

Any comments on that? Paranoid 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Articles should not refer to their talk pages unless there's a dispute of some sort going on. If you don't know something, don't put it in an article. Wait until you have references of some sort and then put it in. The documentary probably doesn't qualify, but surely somewhere someone has a theory on heliotropism we can reference. JRM · Talk 00:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Difference with Phototropism[edit]

Is this not the same as phototropism? Perhaps the two articals should be merged? RandomIdiot 10:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is different. I added some edits that hopefully make the difference clearer. Ceinturion 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Heliotropism doesnt involve growth whilst phototropism does. User: a grade 8 student

Heliotropism in humans[edit]

How about heliotropism in humans? (posted by user: on January 7 2006)

No - pretty much by definition, tropisms only occur in plants. Humans can be sensitive to the sun, yes, but that's not the same thing. DS 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate term?[edit]

"Heliotropism" implies growth, which would be irreversible, but this form of plant movement restores itself, much like Thigmonasty. It has been proposed to me that heliotropism is a misnomer, and "helionasty" is the more appropriate term. Is there any expert knowledge on this one? Sigil VII (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Heliotropism is a historical name, and apparently it is acceptable to professors of biological sciences. See the first reference of the article, written by a professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Ceinturion (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of definition definition[edit]

Wouldn't replacing motion or movement to change in orientation or a single word for such an idea be make the distinction between heliotropism and phototaxis clearer to a reader without much background in biology? Obviously, land plants are not capable of motion toward or away from any stimulus, but the use of a term such as motion or movement may temporarily confuse a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New findings in SCIENCE[edit]

How do the findings recently published in SCIENCE affect this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitz (talkcontribs) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)