Talk:Plant reproductive morphology

message: Here's all the articles that will have to be tweaked/redirected once we get this right.  (Add as necessary.):
Flower, Bisexual, Monoecious, Dioecious, Monoclinous, Diclinous, Perfect
:I have been working on these. I just finished up Flower (and tweeked Bisexual, and Monoecious earlier) Some that are not articles should be created at Wikitionary - Marshman 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List of articles to fix

message: Hello, I was just wondering what the terms were for plant populations that contain Gynomonoecious, Andromonoecious, Trimonoecious individuals or any combination of these. If my understanding is correct, the terms given under "Plant Populations" at the moment do not cover populations with such individuals. For example, Gynodioecious refers to populations in which we have individuals that are either female or hermaphrodite, but no individual has both female and hermaphrodite structures. Thanks - Chris
:Chris: You are confusing me, but I think you are looking for a distinction between terms describing the individual plant and those describing the collection of numerous (potentially sexually different) individuals in a population. For example, if we had  gynomonoecious individuals mixed with strictly monoecious individuals, would that be covered under Gynodioecious population? I think subdioecious would be a safe term in most cases, but these terms tend to be bandied (is that the word?) about by a rather small group of botanical sexists, so the complexity of the terminology is flexible (developing, shall we say). Anyone have a more direct answer for Chris? - Marshman 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty cool. Yes, we shoud put it in.  Let me digest what you did - Marshman 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminlogy applied to populations 

message: I find it hard to believe at this point that there really is value in having another article titled Sexual reproduction of plants separate from this one.  Guess I'll wait and see where you are going, but right now looks like a candidate for merging - Marshman 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a counter-argument against merging:  I came across the term "dioecy" in an evolutionary genetic article.  This article was not about plant sexuality but evolution of sexed species including humans, flies, and other animal species.  Therefore, there is evidence that certain communities discuss dioecy separate from sexual reproduction in plants.  I found the way the current page is separated helpful within this regard. Billyziege 10:31, 23 January 2013 (PST)
I nominated it for WP:COTW. I see a differenbce between terms "sexuality" and "sexual reproduction". "Human sexuality refers to the expression of sexual sensation". Similarly, plant sexuality is describe the consequences and appearance of the given way of reproduction. Whereas  "Sexual reproduction of plants" should describe immediate mechanisms thereof. Both topics are huge. mikka (t) 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual reproduction of plants 

message: There is currently a discussion revolving around the use of monoecious vs hermaphrodite at talk page for Cannabis reproduction.  Please comment.  Chondrite 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannabis reproduction

message: ===Individual plants===
"Dioecious - having unisexual reproductive units (flowers, conifer cones, or functionally equivalent structures) occurring on different individuals; from Greek for "two households". Individual plants are not dioecious, they are either gynoecious or androecious. "
===Plant populations===
"Dioecious - only dioecious plants. "
Rich Farmbrough, 13:00 1  November 2006 (GMT).
It is rather sloppiness: the text is supposed to mean that "dioecious" term is aplicable only to plant species, not to individual plants. I fixed somewhat. `'mikkanarxi 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: "Dioecious - only dioecious plants. "
Rich Farmbrough, 13:00 1  November 2006 (GMT).
It is rather sloppiness: the text is supposed to mean that "dioecious" term is aplicable only to plant species, not to individual plants. I fixed somewhat. `'mikkanarxi 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant populations

message: Both these terms redirect here, but they are also used in non-plant taxa, e.g. I've seen them in invertebrate biology texts. I'm not sure why we have both monecious and diecious and hermaphroditic and gonochoristic, as they seem to mean exactly the same thing. Richard001 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, with plants it is almost always spelled "dioecious". Second, the terms have different meanings for plants, in that they refer only to the sporophytes, whereas "hermaphroditic" would refer to the gametophyte. Third, if they were articles, they'd need to be called Monoecy and Dioecy (or Diecy) to conform to MOS. But if there is substantiated use outside plants, certainly they could have their own articles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But outside of plants they seem simply to be synonymous with the other two words. Perhaps a hatnote would be better? Richard001 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Monoecious]] and [[diecious]]

message: Hi,
speaking as a non-expert I wonder if somebody can help me out here.
The "History" section on this plant sexuality article puzzles me.
I do not subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution - but that is not the point here.
The langauge of this section seems to be shot through with "purposefulness" and "intentionality" as though plants had some "end" in view as they "developed" in their ability to reproduce.
Am I missing something here? Unless the article is assuming something akin to "the selfish gene" idea, where genes do have "intention" then the language is out of place. If even somebody like me can see this, I would have thought that others can. This part of the article "gives comfort to the enemy". Have I misunderstood or is it worth somebody replacing the words and phrases which imply intentionality. Please - I am not fit or qualified to argue about the evolution of plant sexuality - so please look past my ignorance and address the question I have formed here. Apologies for my defensiveness - but I have seen threads degenerate badly on these kinds of subjects. I am not arguing for creationism here- I am merely asking if this section of the article fairly reflects evolutionary thought.
Yours
Ferris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrislindsay (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any "purposefulness" and "intentionality"; can you be more specific?  I simply described what occurred over time, maybe you are overly sensitive to the issue and are reading more into the words than that they are saying? If would be helpful if you can provide some examples and how you are interpreting the meaning. Hardyplants (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: It seems to me that there are several problems with this article:
* It's actually about the sexual morphology of flowers, not plants in general – at most it's about plants in which the sporophyte is the dominant generation
* It's incomprehensible to non-specialists
* It's seriously under-referenced, especially with regard to definitions, and seems to me to contain some WP:SYNTH (see the comments by Marshman above; also the article says "This list is reproduced here, generalized to fit more than just plants that have flowers" – this is definitely SYNTH or even OR)
* It contains some errors, e.g. the use of "monoecious" to mean only a plant with unisexual monoecious flowers, whereas different definitions are found in the literature.
I will attempt to correct any obvious errors, but in many ways it seems to me that it needs to be completely re-written from the beginning, which I don't have time to even think about just now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have now re-written parts to remove the error which strictly equated monoecious with unisexual. I've tried to allow for both the broad definition of monoecious which includes bisexual flowers and the narrow definition which excludes them. I've added references for definitions in the first part of the body of the article. A lot more work is still needed! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that a lot more work is needed; it will probably take considerable time to complete. The section about plant populations seems to me to be an artificial division and arguably shouldn't be here but at Plant reproduction. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And quite a lot of it is simply duplicated; if a particular morphology applies to every plant in a population, then the term for the population is the same as for the plant. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: I propose that this page should be renamed to Plant reproductive morphology (currently a redirect) because, strictly speaking, "sexual" applies to the gametophytes not to the sporophytes, so all the material about anthers and ovaries doesn't belong on the page as currently named. Rather than stripping that all out, I'd prefer to see a thorough treatment of the morphology of the reproduction from gametophytes of ferns, mosses, and the seed plants (perhaps not the green algae, that would get very complex). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, but... "Reproductive morphology" is a much better title. (I've tried to add a bit to explain why sexual terminology is in practice used for angiosperm sporophytes even though it's not strictly correct. This point was completely missing.) However, I'm not sure about the breadth. I incline to the view that it makes sense to have separate articles at least for groups with independent gametophytes and those without (i.e. seed plants). The terminology is different (e.g. the need to distinguish between monoicous/dioicous and monoecious/dioecious); the reproductive morphology of both gametophyte and sporophyte needs to be discussed in detail the former case. I think a combined article would be too long. How about starting with "Reproductive morphology of flowering plants" or "Flowering plant reproductive morphology" and working outwards from there? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: Discussion moved from talk:Dioecy
Is "dioecy"  used for animals? I can't find an example. This article contains very little that is not in Plant sexual morphology, and it could sensibly be merged there. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen "dioecious" used frequently in descriptions of invertebrates. E.g. ISBN:0030229073 Invertebrate Zoology, 5th edition, Barnes Cmungall (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the 7th edition, 2004 (the 5th is a bit old), now by Ruppert, Fox & Barnes (Barnes is dead). The term isn't in the index, but of course may be used. Can you give me some examples of taxa described in this way so I can check whether they are still described in this way? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I guess lumpers and splitters exist in Wikipedia articles as well as in taxa (and an editor can be one in regard to Wikipedia articles but the other in regard to taxa). I tend to be a lumper in Wikipedia, but I quite understand that often it's just a matter of preference; it works either way. I do however think there are some cases where separate articles are forced to repeat a lot of information (which then becomes inconsistent if not incorrect in some of them) and where terms can only be properly understood in relation to one another (e.g. monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly have never made sense to me as separate articles). If Dioecy remains separate, why not have a separate article on Monoecy (which is now a redirect here)? Would you have a separate article on Diploid (i.e. separate from Ploidy)? Peter coxhead (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that I'm generally a splitter, but in this case I'm happy with the status quo because dioecy is a frequently used term. The other terms on this page are numerous, and most are rarely used. For diploid, I don't think it is much used without one of the other ploidy levels being discussed as well, so leaving it in with ploidy seems fine to me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, so I'll take off the merge tag. So long as the two remain correct/consistent, which is my main concern with splitting topics. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal from [[Dioecy]] 

message: What forms of reproduction are common to all plants?  Do all plants have sexual (sperm & egg) reproduction as at least one means?  (I myself don't know, but would like to.  It would be great to have a section about this.  I have placed this in "Talk" for 2 articles: Plant reproduction and Plant reproductive morphology) Acwilson9 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to be addressed, perhaps 

message: I removed a newly added section in this edit. My reasons were:
*It's too specialized in relation to the topic of the article, being a detailed account relating to one species, Arum italicum.
*The topic of functional gender could be included, but would need to be less detailed and more general, in line with the article as a whole.
*The material has other problems, including being US-centric (Arum italicum is not "imported from Europe" except outside Europe) and containing advice contrary to WP:NOTMANUAL ("Arum italicum is best grown in warm environment with moderate moisture ...")
Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed 

message: I had done some research on Andromonoecy and I just realized there is a lot more information on it. From it’s evolution, to how common it is, and etc.
This also goes for Trimonoecious, Gynomonoecious, 
Androgynomonoecious, and etc.
It just seems a little weird that the complexity of sex in plants is confined to a to one sentence for each of these. There are probably readers who have to write research papers on this or are extremely interested in the topic at hand.
I’m gonna try and do as much research as I can and write articles for each of these.CycoMa (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of these should have their own articles. 

message: Given how we humans use bisexual, I think it would be better to replace most instances of "bisexual" with "hermaphrodite" to be clearer and better. While also keeping that bisexual is a term used in some instances. TheZelos (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @TheZelos Thanks for your suggestion, but hermaphroditism is only one of the types of bisexuality in plants. Plantsurfer 18:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then surely there must be a better word than bisexual then? TheZelos (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermaphrodite vs Bisexual