Talk:Monoicy

message: You are creating a lot of confusion without much discussion with those that wrote much of the material you are moving all over the place. At Wikipedia, we try to avoid articles that are essentially dictionary definitions (that is what Wiktionary is all about), which seems to me to be what you are doing - Marshman 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dicdef

message: Contradicts the strict distinction in wikipedia: 
:Of the other or monoicous sub-group of polygamous plants, or those which bear hermaphrodite, male and female flowers on the same individual, the common Maple (Acer campestre) offers a good instance; but Lecoq states that some trees are truly dioecious, and this shows how easily one state passes into another. 
mikka (t) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quotation

message: I've found a quotation which says that "icous" is a term of preference for bryologists, but it is still possible that other botanists freely mix/match "icous"/"ecious", as in one of the quotaitons above mikka (t) 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bryologists

message: Both terms are translated as "однодомный" the same calque from Greek "one house". mikka (t) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian language

message: In all of the botanical texts and dictionaries I've checked, the word autoecious is not a synonym of monoecious.  Instead, it refers to a parasite (such as a Uredinalean fungus) that completes its life cycle on a single host. I have found at least one reference to autoicous in reference to bryophyte sexuality where both gametangia occur on a single branch (as opposed to separate branches of the same plant), but I still think calling syn- forms synonymous with aut- forms too sweeping unless someone can find the term applied to vascular plants. --EncycloPetey 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synoecious not a synonym of autoecious 

message: These edits were predicated on a number of significant errors that were so thoroughly integrated into the rewrite that it was easier to revert than to edit:
# Monoicous / Dioicous has nothing to do with sexual dimorphism.  Sexual dimorphism in plants refers to visible difference in morphology not related to the sex organs.  Only dioicous gamteophytes can be sexually dimorphic, but in many gametophytes, they are not.  Typically, only the sex organs, or the branches that bear them are dimorphic, not the entire plant.  There are cases in which the male and female gametophyte will be completely dimorphic and distinguishable, even without the sex organs present, but this is not a requirement for dioicy.
# The sporophyte is not 'asexual'.  Sexaul reproduction involves both meiosis and syngamy, and these processes occur at the boundary between gametophyte and sporophye generation, not in one or the other.
Further, much of the rewrite duplicates information that should properly be on the Alternation of generations article, not here.  This page is about the monoicous condition, and the dioicous condition as a consequence.  The only reason monecious and dioecious are included here at all is to reduce the confusion of users who think monoicous is just a typo for monecious, instead of realizing they are different terms applied in different situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Lproven 

message: This section has some problems, and seems less than fully accurate to me. I read the refs and the text does not fairly represent them. Needs some work.Michaplot (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Role In Survival

message: I inserted a warning in about 2010 here in a vain attempt to stop people adding incorrect interwikis.  I removed it earlier today, as interwikis no longer work this way.  I have asked those kind people at Wikidata to resolve the rest of the issue over there.  I don't think it is needed either at the foot, for the reason given above, or the head, where we have , however I will leave it to you guys to decide. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to the wikidata request.  Not sure anything is being done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: I’m gonna try and do research and see if there are sources on the evolution of Monoicous.CycoMa (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of Monoicous 

message: Some of the information here should be moved to Dioicy (botany).CycoMa (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically?Plantsurfer 11:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  the article mentions the etymology and history of dioicy. That should be moved.CycoMa (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The section is fine as it is and should be left intact. However, I would agree that the article on Dioicy needs its own etymology section.Plantsurfer 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to dioicy (botany)