Talk:Evolutionary history of plants

message: I have created this article as a stub.  It greatly needs attention of a biologist or evolutionary expert.  Nimur 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The page has been moved by User:Curtis Clark to a more descriptive title of the actual content.  However, please feel free to contribute "such things as plant speciation and population genetics" - which are relevant to the topic as a whole.  Nimur 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: ::Section renamed from "Suggestion" to a descriptive heading.
The article needs a more explicit definition of "plant": does it include cyanobacteria (as older classifications did), does it include green algae (which some current classifications do and some don't), or is it limited to land plants?  Discussing the changing definitions of the term could be informative here as they are directly related to how things that have been called "plants" are related in an evolutionary sense, with modern classifications generally taking a much narrower (and explicitly phylogenetic) view. MrDarwin 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation is to include "proto-plants" such as protists, green algae, and cyanobacteria if they are relevant to the eventual development and speciation of modern plants.  This will definitely assist in the historical perspective of cellular structures and biochemical processes.  Furthermore, I do not think there are separate articles for the evolution of these proto-plant-like organisms.  We can create a separate sub-article with discussion of this topic and any debates or concerns about classification.  Nimur 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created Evolutionary history of plants#Definition of Plant to discuss this section.  Please contribute!  Nimur 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a clear definition of Plant in the article. Was there one originally??  Most people exclude algae from plants, and defiinitely blue-greens. The latter are not even eukaryotes for heaven's sake! In the minds of most biologists land plants equate to embryophytes, in other words autotrophic organisms in which the zygote and early sporophyte are nurtured by the tissues of the gametophyte.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Plants" are defined in the Plant article. Defining them again in every article about plants would be a needless repetition of information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Also in discussing the evolutionary history of plants, it's not sensible to start at some arbitrary point, which embryophytes would be. Even in the evolutionary history of land plants it's not (as far as I know) currently established whether the first non-algal land plants were embryophytes or some precursor. On the other hand, as I've written more than once on this page, the article is too long and tries to cover too much ground. An overview article plus separate more detailed articles would make it easier to understand the evolutionary history of specific groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant Definition

message: I think this article is organized wrong.  It should go by major evolutioniary innovations, photosynthesis, chloroplast, multicellular organisms, the move to land from fresh water, bryophyte like plants and spores, vascular tissue, wood, leaves, seeds, flowers.  It's hard to write like this, and it just doesn't work well with how the evolutionary history of plants is studied.  Does anyone object?  Is anyone particularly wedded to the existing structure?  I could write a different article about the history of evolutionary innovations that lead to the colonization and dominance of terrestial ecosystems by plants, I suppose.  KP Botany 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to re-organize in whatever way necessary.  I will do my best to assist in an editorial role, but I am not an expert in the subject-matter, so I will defer to authoritative reputable sources in all cases.  Nimur 05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that my original intention was to discuss the development of these plant features, rather than a chronological history of plants during each period.  We should try to maintain the useful content while reorganizing to emphasize structural and biochemical developments. Nimur 06:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution.  I hope this isn't too controversial!  Verisimilus T 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What?  You hope that removing all the content from the page won't be controversial?  Removing all the content is usually considered vandalism, even if you post an "Under revision" template.  I have put the content back.  Your move was not only done without discussion but violated the GFDL for removing the edit histories of all contributors to the page.  I have recommended merging Timeline of plant evolution here, since this is the established article, and no justification for changing the name of the article has been made.   --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution.  Verisimilus T 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The move is a violation of the GFDL.  If you want to rename an article, please discuss the new name first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Verisimilus T 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: I intend to eventually have some input into this page, but may be a while about it. In the meantime, this paper is a useful review which could be very productively incorporated; drop me an e-mail if you're unable to access it and I'll let you in. Verisimilus T 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful review papers... 

message: The intro names three predominant aspects. Such prioritization is necessarily subjective. --Etxrge (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: predominant aspects

message: Hi,
As per the cleanup tag on the article, I've had a little project running for a while to re-write this article to address the topic "The evolutionary history of plants".  The pre-existing article, for what it's worth, is forked at Timeline of plant evolution, an article which I hope to focus my attention onto at a later point - so no contributions have been lost as a result of this re-write.  I hope you'll find my article an improvement; I accept that it could still use some honing and re-wording in places, and I hope that the input of others will make it read a little more smoothly.  I have, however, spent a considerable amount of time researching, structuring and formulating this article, so I would appreciate it if any major edits were discussed here before being implemented.
Thanks,
Smith609 Talk 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a vast improvement on the article.  Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: What's a grade and why is the word so tentative that it is in quotes?  Can't you use a word that doesn't have to be in quotes.  It's as if the opening sentence is about saying something you're not sure of.  An unfortunate start to an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a good alternative for "grade"; it is a particular form of organization that is typically considered intermediary between a "primitive" and an "advanced" form.  This terminology has fallen out of favor, but the concept of a "grade" is still used in paleobotanical literature where rleationships between groups are not always known.  The word is in quotes because that is now standard for groupings that are paraphyletic, which is often true of evolutionary "grades".  --02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - the term implies have an equivalent level of complexity without making implications about relationships.  I'll replace the redirect at Evolutionary grade with a better definition, which can be wikilinked from this article.  Any suggestions for suitable references, EncyloPetey? Smith609 Talk 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an easy thing to find.  Most authors use the term with the assumption that the reader will understand.  I could find nothing useful for explanation in the published literature I have at hand, but did find a definition of grade at UCMP in Nan Arens' Virtual Paleobotany Lab .  It does not describe the typographic convention, but does at least provide a definition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms that are used with the assumption the reader will understand them are found in dictionaries, too.  Both grade and clade are found in taxonomic glossaries and textbooks.  The question is, do you mean a grade or a clade with the introductory sentence--plants overall as a clade, individual groups as grades, tied together somehow?  It seems not useful that an article on the evolutionary history of plants should begin with a discussion of grades.  The first sentence is odd and not compelling in the least.  I'm not sure what is meant by it, other than I'm pretty sure the introductory sentence to this article should be discussing clades rather than grades.  Nan hasn't been at Cal for years, so something more current would be nice.  --207.62.177.227 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "grades" 

message: This was a strange reversion commentary.  Isn't that what the article is about, the "evolutionary history of plants" according to "evolutionary theory?"  I think I've fallen into Bizarro Wikipedia lately.  
I'm not sure it belongs in the lead sentence or even the first paragraph, but this did not need to be reverted with a full on dismissal of "evolutionary theory" as opposed to the "factual" accuracy of this article.  Both this article and evolutionary theory are based on facts, that fossils exist, that genes and environment are the source of variation.  If this was a fringe theory attempt to introduce something adding "Evolutionary Theory" to the lead paragraph is hardly the way to do it.  It seemed like a good faith edit to add an important point to the article.  A reversion followed by a discussion of the appropriate place for linking to evolutionary theory in general (if it's not already linked, which seems unlikely) would have been more appropriate than such a strange dismissal of the very basis of the article.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, perhaps my edit summary was unhelpful.   The comment read to me as if it had been added by a creationist with the intention of casting doubt on the article.  I'd be willing to accept "according to the fossil record", or "according to all available evidence", but "according to evolutionary theory" seems implies that there is an alternative theory out there.  I've yet to come across one! (not including beliefs as theories). Smith609 Talk 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no alternative, good or otherwise, but that doesn't mean what we're discussing isn't according to evolutionary theory.  If creationists are out there linking to evolutionary theory in articles about the evolutionary history of organisms, let them!  But I think it was just a reminder that this article should link early on to that theory, because that is the solid basis for this article.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to evolutionary theory 

message: :All multicellular plants have a life cycle comprising two phases (often confusingly referred to as "generations").
This is a confusing statement. Its interpretation depends on what you take to mean "plant." Sensu Plant, "plant" is taken to mean land plants + green algae which is a common circumscription. But then there are multicellular plants without alternation of generations (Chara, for instance, has zygotic meiosis). If we take "plant" to mean just the land plants, then "multicellular" is redundant. Did the original source word it this way?--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Sentence 

message: This is a good read. But I am surprised that the "evolution of flowers" bit makes no mention of co-evolution with pollinators. Hesperian 05:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I really do find the first paragraph somewhat problematic. As it's written, it seems to support the view of "evolution as a progression" from 'simple' to 'complex'. This is a widespread misconception which is specifically addressed at List_of_misconceptions#Evolution. Somehow it needs to be made clear that although more complex grades have evolved successively, this does not mean that every species is more 'advanced' or 'complex' than its ancestors. Parasitism, for example, has reduced complexity in plants like Rafflesia. The genus Cynomorium is hard to place partly because its morphology is so reduced, but this isn't a sign of a 'primitive' plant. Also, as noted later in the article, the modern view is that angiosperms and gymnosperms are sister groups, so it's even more misleading to write "through ... gymnosperms to the complex angiosperms of today".
Below is a suggested re-write. Comments please!
The evolution of plants has resulted in (NOT "occurred through") increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods and ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While groups which evolved earlier (NOT "simple plants") continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they originated, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures. Further, most cladistic analyses, where they agree, suggest that each "more complex" group arose from the most complex group at the time.
Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the whole first paragraph really should be rewritten or just taken out, I don't see the point in bring up complexity at all. A simple sentence describing  of the evolutionary history of plants would be fine. Some thing like, "From single celled algae the vast area of plant life emerged."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.217.128.118 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there was only this one comment, I've made the change I suggested in April. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter coxhead, the first paragraph is problematic. I suggest that the references to complexity and organization are subjective, debatable and not really the point. I would like to work on this article and am happy to discuss any changes. If people do not like, feel free to revert and we can discuss. Michaplot (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1086/36839 has been correctly entered.  If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database.  Please  complete the reference by hand here. 
The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message.  Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to broken DOI 

message: Why does this article say nothing about aquatic plants (e.g. red algae, see Evolutionary history of life)? I would expect that these evolved before land plants. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why nothing about aquatic plants

message: The template Ma is being used to specify a date (for C4 plants) of 6-7 mya, and links to the correct timeline display, but formats the text in this page as -1, giving the result "Miocene, -1 million" Lavateraguy (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template problem 

message: The article claims "The most recent major innovation by the plants is the development of the C4 metabolic pathway." with no citation.  I strongly doubt this statement to be true. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the absolutes. OK? --Ettrig (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolism 

message: This article used to be about the evolutionary history of plants. It now seems to be full of plant anatomy, morphology, physiology, chemistry, etc. with brief discussions/mentions of evolution. As examples, see Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Factors influencing floral diversity and Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Flowering time. The article is also FAR too long, and needs to be split up.
* There should be an article under the original title which covers precisely that topic, namely the evolutionary history of plants.
* There can usefully be extra articles on e.g. "Evolution of flowers", "Evolution of leaves", etc.
It's impossible for editors collectively to maintain articles of the current size and complexity. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I must both agree and admit that I am to a large part responsible. I added the content from Plant evolutionary developmental biology. I still hold that the merge was well motivated. But much of the material is not about evolution at all. That material should be moved to other articles. --Ettrig (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplicating content from one article to another is never a great idea.  It means that two articles must be kept updated.  The added material was also on an entriely different aspect of plant evo-devo, which was not present in the article before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about now? 

message: I think the following statement about the effects of polyploidy requires more explanation: This allows relatively fast bursts of evolution to occur. How does polyploidy speed up evolution? Is it because half of the genes are freed to take up new functions or is it because the polyploid variant is reproductively isolated creating more species? This is what I came to think of. Maybe there are many more possibilities. We should tell the reader about how this works. --Ettrig (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should not tell the reader how this works. We should tell the reader how a referenced source says that this works. What you (or I or any other editor) thought is not relevant. I'm pretty sure I've read both explanations in the past; find referenced sources and summarize what they say. This is an ideal topic for the general Plant evolution article, because the regular occurrence of polyploidy is something that distinguishes the evolution of plants from that of animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The contentious (?) tone of this response is a mystery to me. I agree fully with the factual content. --Ettrig (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't intending to be contentious. Apologies if it came over this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyploidy 

message: The article says Plants were then faced with a balance, between transporting water as efficiently as possible and preventing transporting vessels to implode and cavitate. This assumes there is a conflict between the two. I find this conflict far from obvious. Could someone explain why efficient water transport would cause a risk of cavitation? --Ettrig (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This section, along with a lot of the rest of the article, is nonsensical. I am not sure what the author was getting at, but the problem for plants without lignified tissues is that aridity or larger size creates enough tension in the tubes that they can collapse. Until the xylem became lignified, plants stayed small and avoided very dry conditions. I suppose the balance the article is talking about is that plants "needed" to transport water under higher tensions and if they did not evolve lignin, they would risk collapse or cavitation.Michaplot (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Water transport balance

message: I realized that many of the images in the article are not placed next to the relevant text. I'm going to modify the placement of some images in the coming days, unless anyone strongly feels otherwise. Also I agree with the discussion here that the article is rather too long and needs to be split up. The previous Plant evolutionary developmental biology article was written with a largely molecular perspective while this had a more of paleobotanic perspective. Because of the haphazard merging, the flow between different paragraphs is quite choppy. I think the two articles need to be kept separate and tightened up. Veryhuman (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranging images and splitting articles

message: This is taken from the Transitional fossil article. It might be useful to include in this article. However I have no idea where to put it. 
A middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. Runcaria, small and radially symmetrical, is an integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the mutlilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed. Runcaria has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solid seed coat and a system to guide the pollen to the seed.
That may be too specific a piece of information to add here, but work certainly work in the Seed plant article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a stub article on it to house the text as well. Will be expanding it in the next few days as well. Seems to be quite an important subject that still has no article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runcaria 

message: The following sentence was added by User:69.90.2.114:
:"The wood did not serve a structural role; conteporaneous [sic] trees have woody roots but not a woody stem."
Referenced to:
:
I do not have access to the paper so I can't look into it for clarification. In the meantime, I can not, for the life of me comprehend the context or meaning of the sentence. 69.90.2.114, do you mean Wattieza, the earliest woody ferns in general, or the earliest woody plants all in all? How does that sentence relate to the previous sentence? Indeed it looks completely contradictory.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood not for structure? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Aciphylla.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: A common (sort of) and important process in plant evolution is when there arises a variant of a species that has double the number of chromosomes compared to the mother species. New species arise in this way. I thought this was called "chromosome duplication" or "genome duplication", but find that in this article it is called "polyploidy". In my view polyploidy is a result of the process but not the process in itself. Evolution is the things that happen. These duplications happen now and then and the results have far-reaching and interesting effects. "Polyploidy" does not denote what happened but the outcome of what happened. What is the proper term for this process of duplicating the whole genome? I think we should have an article about it? --Ettrig (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but how does that pertain to the content of this article?  Why did you post that question here?  This talk page is for discussing its associated article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to change the following passage: Polyploidy is a very common feature in plants. It is believed that at least half (and probably all) plants are or have been polyploids. Polyploidy leads to genome doubling, thus generating functional redundancy in most genes. The duplicated genes may attain new function, either by changes in expression pattern or changes in activity. Polyploidy and gene duplication are believed to be among the most powerful forces in evolution of plant form. It is not known though, why genome doubling is such a frequent process in plants. --Ettrig (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome duplication 

message: Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 17:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages 

message: This sentence needs a bit of clarification - "Vascular tissue also facilitated upright growth without the support of water and paved the way for the evolution of larger plants on land." If true, why do vascular plants wilt? Plantsurfer (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the meaning is that the addition of vascular tissue makes the plant more hard and stable so that it can stand up without the support of surrounding water. Indeed, the internal water is part of the structure that provides the stability. When there is a deficiency of such water, the structure is less firm (it wilts). This function is rather like an air mattress, but with water instead of air. The cellulose cell walls are like the compartments of the mattress. Let some air out and the mattress becomes less firm. Hmm, this should be explained in some other article. But it wasn't easy to find. Wilting is very short. --Ettrig (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support of water 

message: The article waffles on about early plant wicking water along their cell walls, but says nothing at all about the critical importance of their association with arbuscular fungi which without doubt facilitated water and mineral nutrient acquisition in early rootless plants transitioning to land. Then at the end there is an unfocussed and off-topic essay on "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" that says much on fine-detail interactions and process but nothing much on evolutionary history, which is the topic of the article. I propose that this section be radically shortened, and a new section added giving the important story of the association between plants and Glomalean fungi. Plantsurfer 23:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungi and the Evolution of Plants 

message: This article is about evolutionary history, but some of the material in it, in particular the section "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites", is more about evolutionary process and contributes little to understanding of evolutionary history. My personal view is that this section would be a better fit to the article Plant evolution.  Would it be acceptable to the editors to move "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" into Plant evolution. Plantsurfer 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Plantsurfer, rather given the size of the text I think it could deserve and article by its own. Lappspira (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move section "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" to Plant evolution

message: The mechanisms and players section of the article does a great job explaining many factors that lead to evolutionary change in plants. However, I feel that it leaves out one important aspect: interaction with other organisms. In plants, a common driver of evolutionary change is fungi. As a specific example, parasitic fungi have been found to cause evolutionary change in plants as plants with greater defenses against the parasite are selected for in a population. The fungal species continues to evolve alongside the plant species in an attempt to gain an advantage over another species.
Stephenoff.2 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And furthermore, the very earliest land plants seem to be strongly associated with fungi, possibly symbiotic, possibly not. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution Due to other Organisms

message: Be warned that there's an anonymous editor making edits like this to plant articles, adding references to the "The Flowering Leaf Theory" based on one primary source (in a journal called The Osprey). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-pusher 

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024