User talk:Curtis Clark/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Come back soon

I hope you return soon, we need you if wikipedia is to be of any use for those that want to learn about plant science, and I need you to correct my edits...I concur that the vandalism is frustrating and that sometimes it seems futile Hardyplants 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Curtis--I share your frustration with vandalism. In my opinion rampant vandalism is one of the major things keeping Wikipedia from being as great as it could be. Vandalizing accounts should be blocked immediately and permanently. Vandalism is one reason (among others) why I don't spend as much time editing Wikipedia articles anymore. It's frustrating to scan my watch list and realize that a huge number of the edits represent vandalism, petty or otherwise; I revert the really flagrant ones but otherwise have pretty much given up. MrDarwin 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll return after your break. More scientists = better encyclopedia, bottom line. I blocked that account, FYI. I'm more of a hardliner against vandalism than some others because the fallout of vandalism isn't limited to damaged articles... — Scientizzle 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has written in support. I've come to realize that I was spending perhaps an hour or more a day on Wikipedia, primarily reverting vandals (I know that doesn't seem like much compared to many other editors, but I have a lot of other things going on in my life right now). I've started pruning my watchlist, in hopes of reducing my tendency to fight vandalism and giving me time for writing actual content.--Curtis Clark 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

This was a great one. :-) --YFB ¿ 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I about died in my chair. Zab 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! :-) --Curtis Clark 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of Plants

Hi Curtis Clark. Thanks for your contribution / move at Evolutionary history of plants. I created the article with a stub, and the content that has filled in has sort of tended towards the new descriptive title. However, please feel free to add any new material which pertains to "such things as plant speciation and population genetics" - it was my intention to make the all-inclusive Plant Evolution article. Unfortunately, I am not an expert, and most of the content has been generously contributed by User:Shrimp wong. Please contribute if you can! P.S. - Sorry I didn't notice your page-move until now. Nimur 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the current title better, since it makes for a more focused article; there's always the tendency with "plant evolution" to ask "Why is this different from evolution in general?" Another article that could pick up some of the other topics is Speciation in land plants, since there are types of speciation (e.g. hybrid speciation, an article desperate for attention) that are much more common in plants than in animals. I used to teach the subject, but I've not paid much attention to the recent literature.--Curtis Clark 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Good choice, just translating yourself. I've translated technical articles from Czech (and Russian) and not knowing the language (I know some Polish) has never been the barrier that lack of technical expertise has been. For an anatomy article you'll do a better translation into English than a native German speaker would. KP Botany 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome mate. ExtraDry 11:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

KP Botany 05:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum--Curtis Clark 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't. They're trying so hard, it's making it more funny than anything else. KP Botany 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote citation

I really enjoyed the quote you mentioned on taxacom on becoming paraphyletic by having children ;) Very quotable, wish it was citeable too ! cheers Shyamal 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All that vitriole

Amazing, all that vitriole directed at me, and User:ChicagoPimp meant precisely what I said he meant the entire time. Here's a link to his user page.[1] KP Botany 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see he still gotta keep the pimp hand strong. I can guess why he's lurking.--Curtis Clark 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I can't repeat what they called me, but he gets to demean prostitutes--it figures, pimps get to beat them up (well, burn them alive in India), so what's a little calling them hos? KP Botany 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment was removed by another editor.[2] KP Botany 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Plant sexuality

I would be grateful if you could add Plant sexuality to your watch list, I would like to rework the page and would appreciate it if you could copy edit and maybe give me a pointer or two. Thank you for you consideration.Hardyplants 04:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Curtis Clark 04:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

taxa nomenclature

As per the rules [3] I understand that the authority is appended to all plant taxa. Then, somebody called our atention in the discussion page, claiming that the same rule applies to animal taxa. Please, check it out. Jclerman 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My memory is that the authorities for animal taxa are not abbreviated, hence "Linnaeus" rather than "L.". I'm not aware of the same level of standardization as exists for the botanical abbreviations. At any rate, the name is Template:Botanist, and if it is to represent all authorities, perhaps the name should be changed.--Curtis Clark 23:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think animal authorities are abbreviated, and animal authorities also include dates with them. Thanks Curtis.[4] KP Botany 01:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mixing up your Gómez Ortega's

"I understand that Casimiro would often toy with the flowers to enrage them before he killed them." If this were Portuguese I'm sure I could come up with a forcado come back to this one, somehow. Thanks for the help, and the laugh. KP Botany 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Syllable stress of classical botanical names

Please edit my changes when (and IF) you get a second, I'm rather stressed for time. Also, I suggest it be an article on Syllable stress of Botanical Latin, so we can deal with pronunciation of foreign names and of acquired names from persons, all of which is covered extensively in books and in Taxon. Please comment on the latter, again, when and if you have the time. KP Botany 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy and content edits, Curtis. I'm staying away from that article for a while, but I didn't want it deleted as the idea behind it is great. KP Botany 07:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Evangelicals

It's a bit surprising since I edit some evangelical Christian, Muslim, Indian deity, and ancient Roman Catholicism articles that nobody ever attempted to proselytize me until the Atheists. Well, it's the only time it has happened to me on Wikipedia, and generally Wikipedia editors leave that way off limits--it tends to be a very civil area on Wikipedia. Repugnant is the word, though. KP Botany 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on botanical authority

What does this mean where it says in for the botanical authority? "Aloe nyeriensis Christian in I.Verd.?" We seem to have the wrong authority for this taxon, but I don't know what the "in" means, I assume it means the same thing as in a bibliography, but I'm too brain dead right now to fix it, or look it up? KP Botany 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'Note 1. When authorship of a name differs from authorship of the publication in which it was validly published, both are sometimes cited, connected by the word "in". In such a case, "in" and what follows are part of a bibliographic citation and are better omitted unless the place of publication is being cited.'[5]--Curtis Clark 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping with the tropical fruit, and for many little edits around the area. I hope you understand that you rock. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 07:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over Category:Botanists with author abbreviations

First, I would like to apologize if you felt that I insulted you.

Second, I have had severe personality conflicts with User:KP Botany in the past, and I really do not like interacting with this individual. (Part of the problem is with me, but part of the problem is with the other user.) I would be willing to enter into a direct discussion with you if you prefer.

Third, see my explanation of Category:NGC objects and Category:Messier objects. These are actually equivalent to categories on families and genus, as the objects in the catalogs all have shared characteristics (they all appear extended). Also, the catalogs are not really growing. (New General Catalogue is also poorly written, admittedly.)

Fourth, I am really willing to compromise or even withdraw my nomination if someone can explain what is so special about the research of authors with abbreviated names. What type of research have they done that no other biologists have done? I just have the impression that the category is just used to indicate that the authors' names appear abbreviated in print, although it seems like Template:Botanist explains this much better than the category and that the average reader would be more likely to use the list to match abbreviations with authors. However, if these botanists are somehow special in some other way (such as being recognized as classical authorities on botany), then I would withdraw my nomination. I would really like to understand. Could you provide an explanation? Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• You gave a good description of the use of standard abbreviations at the CfD page. Would you consider dropping a version of that into the top of the category? Ephebi 16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it a bit differently; let me know if it meets your needs.--Curtis Clark 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/Help

1. Thanks for the welcome

2. I started a page on Famous Poets Society, but it's rough because I haven't learned the ropes of the HTML code or whatever is used here. Do you think you could help?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerofTruth3142 (talk • contribs)

Double standards

Actually, I don't have a double standard. I don't think Brya should have been banned permanently for what she was banned for--a technicality. She should have been blocked much earlier for what she did, and repeatedly blocked until she got the message. But, because she was never blocked, as I said repeatedly, she never got the message. However, if she's going to be blocked for sock puppetry, her puppets need to be stopped--because they continue italicizing higher taxa which is annoying to always be undoing.

Another user got the same thing Brya did, User:Tajik, an irritating editor who has persianized the all of Afghanistan on Wikipedia. He got banned for sock puppetry while he was in the midst of a tricky mediation, and I don't for one minute think he sock puppeted. Like Brya, he was permanently banned as a technicality (in his case a false accusation of sock puppetry) while in the middle of some type of tricky mediation, or community ban discussion.

This is an abuse of process in both cases, and it is rampant on Wikipedia, that editors, most often new editors, get indefinitely blocked after brief discussion on AN/I.

Brya, like SallyForth, is accused of sock puppetry after the fact--Brya has used sock puppets, but I'm not so sure SallyForth did. And, in both of their cases, I think the sock puppetry should be ignored if they would agree to edit responsibly--an impossibility in Brya's case, and an insult in SallyForth's case, because SallyForth did nothing but edit irresponsibly as far as I can tell. And that's what she was banned for.

No double standards at all, they both resorted to sock puppetry, if they both did, after blocks for other reasons or technicalities.

And please read the conversation on TheresaKnott's page before judging me too harshly. I offered alternatives, tried to figure out what to do, was misdirected, mocked, had my intelligence debated and was called a troll (the first time she said I was trolling). And her apology where she proudly declares she should have helped because she could see I was "unable to follow the intructions" is simply lovely. At this point, I'm not the troll.

In the meantime, I know that finding out that there is a user box, "This user is a pimp," which, like ChicagoPimp's user page, links to the article on pimp, will simply result in my being called overly sensitive, and a troll again by some other administrator, and getting piled on by the same group that came to jump on me when TheresaKnott posted again on AN/I. Again, at this point, I'm not the one trolling--but I know exactly how little say I have in anything on Wikipedia. KP Botany 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the Brya/SallyForth distinction better now. I should have read more closely.

I wasn't intending to judge you harshly but rather to defend you. It's not always easy to defend you, since you seem to be better at making enemies than a lot of other editors, and because I need to keep a certain amount of credibility, both for my own selfish reasons and to be more effective at defending you. If I were as sensitive as you, I'd regard myself as overly sensitive, but only because I once was that (publicly) sensitive, and I've worked hard to overcome it. IMO the only opinions I want to care about are those of people I respect. But then that's me. Maybe it's a guy thing, but I got tired of people walking all over my feelings, so I stopped leaving them out.--Curtis Clark 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You do a rather credible job defending me, you and MrDarwin on occassion--it does look rather painful, though, having to defend me. Thank you both. The only thing I can say is, of the alternatives, growing a thicker skin, or just being as petty to others as they are to me, I'd rather not grow a thick skin. I did that once. KP Botany 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's this stuff called armor. Things like the +10 shield of deflection against Wikipedia orcs. You can set it down when you're not using it.--Curtis Clark 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Something more interesting

I don't have the time or inclination to research, but the Daniel I. Axelrod article could use some work, whatever your personal opinion on him is. Controversies surrounding his contributions to biogeography and major disagreements about his climatic interpretations for the Western North American Tertiary, including the Jack Wolfe stuff, also. I have a set of COIs for this, so would tend to evaluate it based upon insider knowledge. Also his major monographs on Tertiary should be listed. He left his fossils to Cal, I think, not at Davis, by the way. I don't suggest you personally do any of this stuff, but if you have time and can add anything to the biographical material on him, that puts him in the context of his contributions to science and paleoecology in the 20th century, please do--it's a shame he doesn't have a decent article. I will eventually clean up and source it a bit.

KP Botany 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He was still teaching when I started my PhD work at UC Davis, and I took both of the courses he taught. I have a certain fondness for the old coot. Even though he turned out to be wrong about some things (Tertiary climate and early angiosperms being the biggies), his views about reconstructing fossil floras never got as much respect as they deserved, and much of his work could be profitably reexamined.

Some Axelrodiana:

• He took us to a fossil site near Fallon, NV, where we got to collect (and keep) Miocene impression fossils. He'd always be excited about well-preserved stuff (even if it were well-known from the site), but of may other fossils his opinion was "That's a piece of crap." I've found that statement endlessly useful, especially in the format "That's a piece of crap (D.I. Axelrod, pers. comm.)".

• He was a fan of the bear claw pastries at a particular restaurant in the mid-Sierra and would always take a specific field trip by there as the first stop, his treat.

• He was one of the few biologists to ever do a complete 180º on continental drift (which he insisted on calling "continental rafting"). He published papers showing how the distribution of fossil plants supported stable continents, then he stopped publishing about that entire subject for a number of years, and then he published a paper on how the distribution of fossil plants clearly supported continental rafting. He never quite admitted that he had changed his mind, but his writings show that he clearly did.

Jim Doyle and I once talked about "Axelrod Hell", spending eternity in the uplands of the Triassic searching in vain for the ancestral angiosperms. I hope he's doing better than that. --Curtis Clark 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm not intruding on this conversation, but Raven & Axelrod's 1974 biogeography paper in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.--to which continental drift was central--was groundbreaking in many ways and influenced my own research back when I was a wee tot (okay, still in college, although the paper was already a decade old at that point). In my own specialized field--Gesneriaceae--they correctly concluded it was an old family that predated the breakup of the continents (largely because the two major subfamilies of Gesneriaceae are very distinct and confined to the New and Old World, respectively), a conclusion that was ignored by Gesneriaceae researchers for the next 30 years or so, who believed the family was a very young one (a misconception that still persists; I saw the claim made in a paper that just came out this year). Molecular phylogenies have now shown that Gesneriaceae are the sister-clade to most of the rest of Lamiales. MrDarwin 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather fond of his work, but I was raised by Wolfe's camp, and wow did I hear about it when I started researching some of Axelrod's floras--you'd think I started a civil war. An interesting thing I found out is that he examined a lot more fossils than he collected, and when he wrote about his floras, he wrote with the wealth of knowledge of everything he had seen, extant and fossil, in the organisms, and the rocks, and if you did not realize that, you might underestimate the amount of evidence he was working from.

We should also have an article on Wolfe. These two could both have top quality full length articles. I see what you mean, Curtis, by there being a lot of scientists who simply are not on Wikipedia.

MrDarwin, interesting comment about the Gesneriaceae. A professor whom I really admired always stayed out of the Axelrod versus Wolfe discussions, because he felt that he personally did not know enough about the subject to disagree with Axelrod, and felt that most people who disagreed with Axelrod knew far too little to be doing so. I'm sure this professor was in the Wolfe camp. Anyway, they would both be fun, and, yes the Raven and Axelrod paper is what led me to see if we had an article on Axelrod, as a librarian is working on the "monographs" category, and I was wondering if the Raven and Axelrod paper had ever been published as a monograph, then got sidetracked. ----KP Botany 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany raised by Wolves. That explains a lot. Do you have enough biographical information to start the article?--Curtis Clark 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have enough information to start a stub like the Axelrod one, probably even more, but I don't have enough time right now, as I'm prepping for a professional exam in a few weeks, and I'd still have to check dates and all. But I'll get around to it, if no one else does. It'll take some time and work to get some good ones up, but they're deserving characters. And, yes, maybe it explains why browsing the scientific literature is familiar grounds, having spent the best part of a childhood being dragged up and down the cliffs and mountains and scree slopes of the West, and having been abandoned for hours on end in dusty old natural history museums with nothing to do but read the literature piled around (and play hide and go seek in the mammoth hall with my brother)--but it sure made show and tell awkward when everything I brought in had only a Latin binomial name that the other kids laughed at. Can you see why I'm so thin-skinned? Sniff, sniffle. KP Botany 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists#Organization

Based on some of conversations I have had about lists on WP, I have added the section Wikipedia:Lists#Organization as a reference point. However I think the wording/formatting may be a little clumsy, and as it is a style guideline I thought I'd ask the opinion of an editor I respect. It all seems pretty non-controversial/common sense stuff, but after I wrote it I thought I should probably just make sure it reads that way. Would you mind giving it a gander? So far nobody has commented on the talk page or at WikiProject Lists about it, so I assume no one cares either way. But again, it's not Hamlet, it's just a reference point. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's a valuable contribution; thanks for adding it.--Curtis Clark 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Wolfe

I didn't know that Jack Wolfe had died. I was in a bad accident that summer, and my family says they told me, but I guess it didn't sink in. I will try to get a starter article on him posted this weekend if no one beats me to it. When I started looking stuff up, it wasn't so straightforward, because, unlike Axelrod, I didn't realize I'd never researched Wolfe's life or work, except in relation to Axelrod's. It is interesting that both attained great prestige for research they published late in life after already long and memorial careers. KP Botany 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub shorter than my springer spaniel's tail, in order to do the disambiguation from a Canadian politician (isn't it always the case that politicians get the first articles; my former colleague Peter Deutsch, who invented Archie, was pre-empted by one). There appears to be a useful obituary here, but like most Springer Verlag stuff, it costs to read. There's also the presentation of the Paleontological Society Medal which requires a login.

How did your professional exam go?--Curtis Clark 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not for a couple more weeks. I got to do my practice exam this week, and totally flubbed it, but I usually do, and it doesn't usually impact my final exam. Thanks for doing the dab and the stub. Springers are great dogs. KP Botany 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Hi, thanks for your comment there. But it's unclear whether you support the proposal. I wonder whether you could clarify this (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal_for_guidelines_on_gender-neutral_language). Tony 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I clarified on the talk page: I really don't care. You've hit a political nerve with that one, and I see no good outcome. I think it's better for those of us who support gender-accuracy to continue to write and edit that way, and lead by example, than to waste any more time arguing with editors who clearly have a broader agenda.--Curtis Clark 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

pimpopedia.com

Well dang nab it, I wish I had gotten there first. I do dislike the popularization of words that have been used to denigrate other human beings, or words that are about destroying other humans--it doesn't take the sting out to make it popular, it just allows people to ignore the evil. Even rappers nowadays are reconsidering their word choices. Wikipedia doesn't need to devolve. Yes, it's amusing. KP Botany 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Inflorescence subpage

As User:Curtis_Clark/Inflorescence has not been edited since June and the new article on inflorescences is on Wikipedia space (please have a look at it, I'm looking for feedback), I think you may want it deleted. Bye! Aelwyn 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

I have semi protected WP:PROTECT your user page as you seem to attract user-page vandals. Hope it is fine with you. Shyamal 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit from 134.71.14.138 was actually me; I was demonstrating some of the differences between editing by anons and registered users, and I didn't want to disrupt a page in the main namespace. I don't mind being sprotected, but I'm not sure it's really warranted.--Curtis Clark 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, leaving it for the moment unless you want your page to be a honeypot. Shyamal 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Thanks for note on vandals, its frustrating at times and unlike other headaches one encounters on Wikipedia , they can't be avoided. I am still learning the ins and outs of the "system" around here. Have found that at certain times of the day one gets more satisfying results when reporting vandals, so there is variation in response. I Hope the new year is going well with you. Hardyplants 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Asteraceae tribes

Hi. KP Botany suggested you might be able to assist with this query; in brief, identifying which tribes of are most heavily-represented in the existing Category:Asteraceae stubs (or perhaps otherwise, are there any subfamilies that are stable and generally-accepted enough to be useful as sub-types, for tagging purposes). Thanks. Alai 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did list the big tribes, thinking of just the big three the Heliantheae, Senecioneae, and Astereae. After that I don't know, but maybe you know the other big tribes, or resources. Still, there are enough sunflowers in these groups to keep Alai busy for a while. KP Botany 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm specifically looking for a list of the genera in the tribes (or sub-families) in question, which would allow me to sort 'em. Alai 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I dredged up a list from the German WP. Feel free to double-check the contents of Category:Heliantheae stubs. Alai 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement

Hi there, I'm trying to tally up who supported this idea and who opposed it, but I'm not 100% certain if I should count your comment as a "support" or as "neutral", would it be possible for you to clarify your comment? All the best Tim Vickers 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure out of all of the discussion what the "idea" is. I suppose I'm neutral; I've learned that the degree Celsius is a listed coherent derived unit, so the only non-SI units that are routinely used in the fields I frequent are the time units of minute, hour, day, month, and year. I stopped using ångström years ago in favor of nm.--Curtis Clark 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation in naming of taxa

Thanks, Curtis, for referring me to the thread discussing the use of the IPA with scientific names. I agree with your point regarding regional pronunciation, and do just that for the SE Asian taxa that I mainly work with. As regards your correction of Darlingtonia, I've amended it slightly to include the near-close vowel ʊ, as ο is not used discretely in either RP or GA IPA conventions. Attenboroughii 18:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at, and correct if necessary, International Phonetic Alphabet for English. It lists for General American, "/o/: bode". That seems wrong to me (should be /oʊ/), but if "Darlingtonia" is /oʊ/, "bode" would have to be /oʊ:/ to preserve the distinction in pronunciation (at least the way I pronounce 'em).--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the IPA chart for English page with its alternative set of references supports /oʊ/. It doesn't help when linguists themselves fail to arrive at a standard convention. I'm loathe to touch that until I consult an objective, hardcore phonologist. Alas, I'm just a botanist with a linguistic bent, but I have access to a great phonologist and will try to look into it). Thanks again. Attenboroughii 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attenboroughii (talk • contribs)

For your reference, the relevant page (International Phonetic Alphabet for English) has been updated by a very capable linguist. Attenboroughii (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese citrus

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Legal intoxicants

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legal intoxicants, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal intoxicants. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhizoids Vs root hairs Vs trichomes

Hi Curtis the definitions of these terms are sometimes very vague. However, I think that we may agree in the following: trichome is a general term for a diverse group of epidermal structures; root hair is a very specific and defined type of epidermal outgrowth present present in roots of vascular plants; rhizoids are present in many different organism, and their homoplasy is questionable.

I totally agree that their homoplasy is questionable, since there is no clear evidence to refute their homology (and in this case I mean among the land plants, not counting the structures of algae and fungi with the same name). But I don't think that's what you meant.

It is innacurate to call root hairs a type of rhizoids, because it doesn't reflect the evolutionary uniqueness of root hairs. Do you agree? --Pirex (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't have any references at hand, but my memory is than the distinction is very vague in the pteridophytes; fern sporophyte roots and rhizomes can have hairs more or less identical to the hairs of the gametophyte thalli (other than of course their ploidy). The root hairs of seed plants are indeed specialized, but there is no reason to think that they aren't just a specialized form of rhizoid.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But pteridophytes do not have a root and, because root hairs are structures specific to the root epidermis, they do not have true root hairs... Nevertheless, I understand your point to simply use rhizoids as a morphological group. Cheers Pirex (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you call the negatively geotropic organs that originate from pteridophyte stems?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely, for a minute I was thinking in the rootless psilotales... I was searching through the literature but couldn't find a better definition of what a root hair and a rhizoid are than the following paper (which I don't have access to the full text): Pearson H (1969) Rhizoids and Root Hairs of Ferns. American Fern Journal 59, 107-122. [6] But I should note that everywhere the term root hair is used exclusively for vascular plants, while rhizoids exclusively in algae, bryophytes and fern gametophytes. Pirex (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)