From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Separate botany and philosophy?[edit]

This a pointless subject and should be deleted immediately.

The point of Deleuze's use of this botanic concept is precisely of playing on the difference between botany and philosophy. They are not too separate things, although Deleuze of course uses the term in a much broader sense than the strict botanic sense. But to separate them in two articles misses the point, I'm afraid. As long as it doesn't make a huge article, I'm sure it's perfectly allright if they stick together... Lapaz [on 11 March 2006]

It may be alright, but it's not really the job of an encyclopedia to draw the reader's attention to a metaphorical relationship between two dissimilar things. And they are most certainly "too [sic] separate things,": as fun as it is to think differently, plants and ideas are fundamentally different. I'm going to split this one up.

When I get around to it, that is.

ZacharyS 09:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, I think the article is short enough to stay in one piece, and that Deleuze's metaphor based on the horizontal connectivity of botanic rhizomes does merit encyclopedic mention. So unless the article grows much longer, I support Lapaz's view on this. -- JimR 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

An article per topic, please. No mixing oranges and orangutans. `'mikka (t) 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

somebody should get rid of corm being the opposite of rhizomes cuz it dont make no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As in the tuber article, tubers don't develop from stolons[edit]

I think some people don't understand the difference between a rhizome and a stolon. The stolon article has it right, but the tuber and rhizome articles are wrong. See [[1]] and [[2]]--Jcvamp 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see [3], which states that a tuber is from a subterranean shoot, 'a root-like subterranean shoot' being the definition of a rhizome.--Jcvamp 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect more specifically a rhizome is a stem that roots along the bottom surface, while a stolon roots only at the nodes thus a potato is a stolon and not a rhizome. The application of the terms are slopply used, even by botanists. Rhizomes can be above ground, note ORCHID species that produce psudobulbs and grow in trees, the "false bulbs" grow from rhizomes. In the same way the Potato is atypical, the stolon moves deeper into the soil and forms the tuber so its away from frost and animals that would consume it.Hardyplants 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) no smoking

A stolon is a subterranean shoot, that forms new plants at the ends, it is a stem just as a rhizome is a stem. The shoots on a rhizome grow from buds formed at the ends while the rest of the rhizome is a non to slow growing stem that lives for many years in most plants(that is why it says "root like) while the whole structure of a stolon is really a shoot, since they grow fast and do not persist for very long.Hardyplants 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)