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.
 
WikiProject Food and drink  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

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]

phylogenetic tree broken[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but this is how the phylogenetic tree in the #Evolution section looks like for me. Can someone who is able to do that, fix it please? :) Thx. --Thogo 09:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thogo: It looks fine to me. What browser are you using? There are some known issues with {{clade}} regarding how different browsers render the code. --Rkitko (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I use Firefox (current revision). Hm, well, if it's ok for most people, then better leave it at that. ^^ --Thogo 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Def not OK. I see it broken just as Thogodoes, using both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. If the code fails for those browsers there needs to be a fix. Plantsurfer 20:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Plantsurfer: This is really strange. It looks perfectly fine to me in Chrome, but get this -- I always browse Wikipedia with the browser zoomed out to 90%. Try it by pressing Ctrl and -. Zoomed out, it looks fine. Zoom back in to 100%, and it's broken. So odd... Anyway, I think the two edits made to {{clade}} in November 2014 were responsible for this broken display. I tested the template before those changes and it performed as expected. I've reverted the changes to the template back to the version before November 2014 and the cladogram here is fixed. Let me know if the problem persists for you in different browsers. Rkitko (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rkitko: Thanks, it works perfectly now, regardless of zoom level, in both Chrome and Internet Explorer. Plantsurfer 06:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Same here, thanks for the repair. :) --Thogo 16:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporal Range WRONG?![edit]

It says "Early Cambrian" but it shows the Middle Cambrian what's sup with that and please someone please fix that. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015[edit]

The photosynthesis equation is not balanced. Change "O2" to "6O2". 67.70.42.104 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

67.70.42.104 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Single/Multi cellular[edit]

A lot of people refer to certain types of algae as a plant and many scientists refer to single celled plants.

If that is the case, is the beginning sentence of plants being multi-cellular only an accurate one? Chris Fletcher (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Many people only regard Embryophytes as plants, but the article treats Viridiplantae as plants, and not all

members of that clade are multicellular. Plantsurfer 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"modular" unclear[edit]

I have a doctorate in biophysics, and thus I am not an "layperson", yet I have no idea what is meant by " Plants are also characterized by ... modular ... growth," even after reading the article it links to. The word "modular" does not appear in the linked article. I have "Plant Life" from Oxford Unifersity Press on my desk and it does not index "modular". Can some botanist please elucidate for the educated layperson, the meaning of "modular growth"? Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See, e.g., this explanation. A tree branch can be considered to be a "modular part" of the tree. It usually has buds capable of growing into new branches, so that the tree is made up of an indefinite number of modules. The contrast is with the determinate growth and shape of almost all animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It means that the structure is made of repeated similar units. Individual animals have segmentation, with a few repeated "modules", but these typically occur in a fixed location and in finite numbers, such as ribs in the human body, or body segments in a centipede. By contrast, buds, branches, and leaves repeat over and over throughout the structure of a single plant. So, instead of specific organs localized in a particular location as animals do, the organs in a plant repeat over and over as modules. Some colonial marine invertebrates approach this kind of pattern.
And because of indeterminate growth, plants can repeat these same modules over and over throughout their lives. When modular structure is combined with indeterminate growth, the result is (in mathematical language) a fractal pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Green plants" ?[edit]

The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the figure '300-315 thousand' accurate?[edit]

The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S (talkcontribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

beneficial characterstics of plants[edit]

Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Plant nerves and feelings?[edit]

Hi!

The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)

However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.

I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016

I looked the citations, and the citations seems to be mostly unrelated. First citation refers to some history in 1800 where some researcher at that time made a hypothesis. It is a fact that there was a person who made a hypothesis, but that does not make the hypothesis true. Second citation says in abstract that plants "lack central nervous systems", exactly opposite of the claims in article. --Thv (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)