Talk:Glossary of plant morphology terms

message: A new glossary has been created at Glossary of botanical terms that duplicates the effort of this one. The original author probably wasn't aware of this article. I propose the two are merged. --Rkitko (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up the Glossary of Botanical Terms and must say that it was done in ignorance of the glossary here. There are a number of points: botanical glossaries are not usually split up into sub-categories like this one. It has advantages because, say, all the leaf terms are in together so you can discriminate what you are after quickly if it is leaf terms you are interested in. However, people generally use glossaries because they do not understand what a word means - so if they do not know what it refers to then they would have to look through each categories until they find the word they are after. In other words, in its present form it assumes you know roughly what the word means before you look it up. I think it is simpler and more useful to just provide an overall alphabetical listing. I would suggest that this list be merged into the Botanical Glossary which would be the "parent". Also the categories in this article here are rather arbitrary (e.g. ?embryo glossary), there are many blank entries and treatment variable on the different themes. I would be prepared to merge this article into the Botanical Glossary but it may not be for a few weeks.Granitethighs (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason this is a "list" rather than a "glossary" is that, most often, alphabetically arranged glossaries get moved to Wiktionary.  A thematic list is more likely to be viewed as worthy of inclusion in a dictionary; an alphabetical glossary is likely to be shunted off to another wikiproject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that we need to choose between an alphabetical listing and a listing by category. Glossaries for advanced readers are usually alphabetical, like the one by Benjamin D. Jackson (1928), or the one at the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. But those for the average reader often have an alphabetical list with more elaboration or illustrations in categories for special terminology. Two good examples are Plant Identification Terminology (Harris and Harris, 1994) and The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms (Hickey and King, 2000). The double listing creates alot of duplication, but it makes the glossary easier to use, especially for comparing terms of similar meaning. 
128.171.106.213 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I urge that we merge the List of externally visible plant parts here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  I see no difference in intended scope, and List of plant morphology terms is, I suppose, a better title. Kingdon (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Support.  Guettarda (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[List of externally visible plant parts]] 

message: As most of you know, one of your earliest most well worn books was an illustrated glossary of plant morphology terms.  Please make an illustration of your favorite term, upload it to WP:Commons, and put it in the glossary. PPdd (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: Please help create links by putting square brackets around the terms. PPdd (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help create links 

message: The entries for bryophyte sporangia have been heavily moss-biased. For a nice example of how the sporangium develops in a liverwort see The life history of Ricciocarpus natans, by John F. Garber. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget the liverworts!