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.


The intro says "an anther ... pollen sacs". That makes no sense. Corvus cornix 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


I have begun a major revision of this page. The corresponding page about carpels is titled Gynoecium. I think there should be some consistency and either this page should be retitled Androecium, or the gynoecium page should be retitled Carpels. Michaplot (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may like to check out A REVISED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE SPORE-CONTAINING PARTS OF ANTHERS by J . W. GREEN ... it recommends use of microsporangia till dehiscence, then loculus ... avoiding theca, cell, pollen sacs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the article, I read the article and it makes some interesting points, but it does not seem to me to have much bearing on our stamen treatment. For one thing, the Green article is from 1980 and most of the examples of ambiguous usage are from papers from the late 1800s through the early 1900s, which is not surprising. Botanical terminology has had a long period of development. In my experience botanical terminology is fairly stable today, as it may not have been 100 years or so ago (with some notable exceptions).
For another thing, Green was specifically addressing the internal morphology of the anther. Our stamen article actually essentially follows Green's recommendation, with the possible exception that locule could be better defined.
He does not, as you seem to suggest, recommend using the term microsporangium for the anther or androecium until dehiscence and then locule after. Rather, he assumes that the structure will be called an anther and he specifically endorses the use of the term lobe to refer to the appearance of an anther, as long as no assumptions about internal structure are made. Green proposes the term microsporangium refer to "A discrete sporogenous region of the anther consisting of inner, sporocytic cells or spores..." This is consistent with current usage. He proposes that the term locule be restricted to, "a chamber releasing pollen at anthesis through a single stomium." In other words, sometimes two of the microsporangia in a typical tetrasporangiate anther merge before dehiscence to form a single chamber with only one opening. This is also more or less consistent with current usage, though locule may be used to refer to the cavity in a microsporangium as well. So I think I might tune up the definition of locule a bit based on the Green article you suggested.
"The Green article does not bear on whether we should change the name of this article to androecium, as I propose. Michaplot (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revert article title to Androecium[edit]

I propose this article be titled Androecium to be consistent with the Gynoecium article. Stamen should redirect to Androecium. In denoting the parts of a flower, androecium is the higher category, that is, it includes the concept of stamen within it. True, most people would search for stamen rather than androecium but the correct term for stamens in total is androecium. Thus the concept of an androecium allows for a more comprehensive treatment of the subject. Petal and Sepal are treated as articles rather than corolla and calyx, so another possibility is to change gynoecium to carpel, however, I would favor treating all floral whorls by their collective name. Thoughts anyone? Michaplot (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)