Talk:Plant/Archive 1

message: This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany
The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted).
* Hepatophyta Marchantiophyta, liverworts
* Anthocerophyta Anthocerotophyta, hornworts
* Bryophyta (Moss)
* Lycophyta Lycopodiophyta, club mosses
* Psilotophyta, whisk ferns
* Sphenophyta, horsetails
* Pterophyta Pteridophyta, ferns
* Cycadophyta, cycads
* Ginkgophyta, ginkgo
* Gnetophyta
* Pinophyta, conifers
* Magnoliophyta, flowering plants
** Liliopsida, monocots
** Magnoliopsida, dicots
??Will you accept Algae as plants" 81.144.158.195 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't necessarily include it if I were writing the article, maybe a see also, with a note, however I added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue you raise.  KP Botany 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to be moved out 

message: Why was a request for help regarding how to remove a redirect to this page removed by reverting to a previous state?
Sorry, I reverted a typo you made and missed the question you asked at the bottom. My bad.  Here is your questions again:
=== The redirection of Vegetation === 
Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help...Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go to the Vegetation page. It will redirect you right back here, but you will see just below the article title the line "redirected from vegetation".  Click on vegetation in that line and it will open up the redirect.  You can then edit that page, adding text and deleting the Redirect line—Vegetation will become an article again.  You can recover any old text by going to the page history, opening an older version and copying the text to drop into your article. - Marshman 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edit 

message: Vegetation was redirected to Plant 2 years ago. I don't agree with this (conceptually) and want to write a separate article on vegetation. I've read the page How to rename (move) a page but it's still not clear to me how to abolish the redirect and write the article. Help...Jeeb 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go to the Vegetation page. It will redirect you right back here, but you will see just below the article title the line "redirected from vegetation".  Click on vegetation in that line and it will open up the redirect.  You can then edit that page, adding text and deleting the Redirect line—Vegetation will become an article again.  You can recover any old text by going to the page history, opening an older version and copying the text to drop into your article. - Marshman 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redirection of Vegetation 

message: Just as a notice, I am currently working on a full-scale review of plant defenses to herbivory as an additional section to this page that will include an overview of peer-reviewed scientific research in plant defense, historical and present theory, and current studies. I expect to have a draft of the page ready by the beginning of February, and I look forward to members of the national and international community filling in the gaps I may leave out.--Franciepants18 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean plants "seeing" objects, I highly doubt it. Plants don't have a nervous system. However they can sense and respond to light. For example, auxins and other plant hormones enable plants to react on external conditions and adjust to them. But it's not exactly like the human sensory system. SCHZMO ✍ 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Check the last reference on Aspects of Plant Intelligence Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Addition: Plant Defenses to Herbivory 

message: I remember when I was studying mathematics about the beneficial effects that fractals had on the human mind, as well as a study referenced at one point. Sadly, I don't remember the name or whereabouts of said study, and I don't have access to a scholarly database. I thought I might put the idea out, however, on the positive effects of plants in psychology and that such. Ecopirate 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Addition to Importance: Plants in Psychology 

message: I merged part of the Importance section with the Ecological relationships section, then edited and expanded it. The sections overlapped on photosynthesis. The semi-parastic example was changed from eyebright to mistletoe because the eyebright wiki page is a tiny stub. The mistletoe wiki page is a much more informative page. The remainder of the Importance section was expanded and subheadings added. Plantguy 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance and Ecological Relationships sections 

message: I need information about plants & their nutrients...like How do plants travel through a plant? Where do they come from? where do they go? How does the sun help the plant to grow? Why does a plant need sugar to grow? this are my questions a being looking into every single page about plants & i can't find the answers...thanks...
:Sounds like you need someone to do your homework for you first and foremost.  I'd start by re-reading what you write : "How do plants travel through a plant?".  Your teacher won't be too impressed with this sort of thing.  On the off-chance that this is a serious request, you might want to look at the articles on roots, xylem, phloem and photosynthesis (and follow the wikilinks from these where appropriate).  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help... 

message: What project maintains this article? Where can i find on Wikipedia a good diagram about the general plant structure that will show me what the major plant's parts are and what their spacial relationship? -- Boris 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The project 

message: After continuous vandalism and nonsense edits over the last 24 hours, I've reverted to the last version that I'm pretty sure was unvandalized, yesterday's version by Eskog. As far as I can tell I'm not deleting any valid edits. MrDarwin 21:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: How many plant's have been found on 2006?
Also when you are doing a project on plants then what should we chose to do204.210.255.18 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant's Fact 

message: I gather that the "Internal Distribution" section refers to allocation, but what does the "External Distribution" refer to?  Guettarda 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal/External Distribution 

message: There should be a list of different plant systems,and their uses--Tingpeng19:01 22 September 2007
:Which systems do you mean?  Are those systems found in all plants?  This article is about all plants, including mosses and algae.  If the systems you mean are only found in one groop of plants, then the information should be on the article for that group.  For example, vascular tissue really should be on the page about vascular plants.  --EncycloPetey 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant Systems 

message: Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history.  When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal.  An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation.  The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies.  This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete?  Lots on Wikipedia is.  If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article.  There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores.  In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied.  I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em).  I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it.  You can't assume it's purposefully not listed.  If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops.  Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information?  KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo.   Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus.  Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is.  I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention.  This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus.  I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food plants for Lepidoptera 

message: I have ice plant at home , its very beautiful. Have u ever heard of it? it grows in Winter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anishgirdhar (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice plant....... 

message: I found the error in the source, it is the image block that has ... "branch showing 27 annual growth rings, pale sapwood and dark heartwood" ..., I think the code for it is messed up, when it is removed it prints correctly. Teh420 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't print in Firefox 

message: Green Algae used to be placed in the Plant kingdom but it no longer is. I am not sure how recent algae was moved to the protista kingdom due to some reasons, but it would be most appreciated if the entry here on plantae was changed to not include algae. Algae is mostly unicellular, most algae cell walls are made of pectin, algae embryo's grow unprotected, and it is aquatic and marine.
Ruishi 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends upon which green algae you are discussing, as the group is paraphyletic.  Please see the article on Green algae to learn more about why your arguments have already been dealt with, why some Chlorophyta are properly placed in the plant kingdom and belong in this article, and why not all do.  KP Botany 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And inasmuch as the Chlorophyta plus land plants form a monophyletic group, that group is equated to Plantae by many botanists. In fact, if there are chlorophytes that phylogenetically diverge prior to the divergence of the Charophyceae, all green algae must be included in the Plantae.--Curtis Clark 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The blue greens are Bacteria. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a serious error.  Green algae are classified within the Plantae.  If you disagree, then please provide a current publication in plant systematics saying so.  I can provide several dozen from the past ten years, including articles by phycologists, bryologists, systematists, and paleobotanists,   Kingdom "Protoctista" has been dismembered in the last ten years as a grossly paraphyletic group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algae does not belong in plantae 

message: I noticed in the Importance-Food section:
"Virtually all human nutrition depends on land plants, directly or indirectly. The animals some people eat are mainly herbivores."
Should this be changed to include fish and the plants in that food chain or would that invite arguments about the status of algae?  On the other hand, if it is appropriate to specifically refer to a dependence on "land plants," would it be good to also specify that it is the "land animals" (not fish) which are being referred to?  Also, (getting more picky here) the current phrasing also seems to ignore the fact that a person who eats a carnivorous animal (such as most food fish if one wanted to include them) would also be getting nutrition from plants indirectly.
--Lex 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picky details? 

message: What's the evolutionary history of plants? How far back can we trace it? Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Evolutionary history of plants.--Curtis Clark 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution 

message: I saw this link on Slashdot today: http://pressesc.com/01181755074_plants_recognise_siblings - or see the study directly. This is interesting material. Maybe it could be added to the article sometime? —msikma (user, talk) 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can go to Kin selection for sure. Shyamal 09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants "recognize" their siblings? 

message: 1 2 3 4 5
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quietmartialartist 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your plum tree is sick, very sick, you have more than one fungal and bacterial organism living on the trunk and they have been there for a few years.  Its hard to tell which one caused the canker like growth and corresponding dead tissue.  If the tree does not produce fruit, I would remove it and replant another plum some were else on the property. (remember you will have best fruit set with at least two different tress for cross pollination) You have a primary infection that has caused tissue death and a number of secondary infections.  Fungicides might help but its not likely since they are going the have a difficult time getting into the trunk.  Hardyplants 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I did  not answer your question,  the stuff on your tree looks to be the trees defensive mechinsim against invaders.  The Jelly or tar like secretions are produced by the tree to trap invaders and keep they away from the living tissues.  Does your tree have a graft point, if so this is a likely location for the start of the infection- which could be a fungus or a bacteria. See this http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/bacterialcanker.htm  23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this on my plum tree? 

message: I like the taxobox collage idea.  I really do.  But all the pictures are flowering plants, except the squashed fern at the top.  A similar discussion took place with the animal collage.  Yes, the majority of plants are angiosperms, but doesn't mean we have to exclude everything else.  If we could get a moss, a pine tree, and a gingko on there, that would be more indicative of plant diversity.  Werothegreat 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree totally. Most animals are beetles, and most atoms are hydrogen, but the diversity's the interesting part.--Curtis Clark 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ought to be a green alga, a bryophyte (moss), a fern, a gymnosperm, and a flowering plant (or two or three).  Likewise, there should be images of whole plants, not just close-ups of their leaves and sexual appendages. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwahahahah!! That "sexual appendage" bit made my morning. Circeus 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage... 

message: According to the Wikiproject Echo box at the top of this page, the Finnish (Suomi) article :fi:Kasvi (Plants) is a featured article.  However, there is no star on that article or any indication I can find that it has been a featured article.  Can anyone sort this situation out? --EncycloPetey 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling that it is just called a "Recommended article" over there, presumably without stars or other decoration indicating its special "status". --Van helsing 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at :fi:Keskustelu:Kasvi. I think that template doesn't belong. (Too bad, it's an improvement over "featured articles" that are half as short as our non-featured one.) Circeus 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Finnish article? 

message: a simple mathematical problem. green algae are said to have 3800 species, but clicking on green algae, one gets to an article saying it has 1000-2000 species. the same occurs in some other cases. have i not read an explanation of this, is there one missing, or are some articles at fault? thanks, felix  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.236.89 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The green algae article is incorrect; there are at least 3800 species of green algae known.  Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes "green algae" or even Chlorophyta has changed drastically in recent decades, so one must be careful when looking at numbers of species.  The Chlorophyta article claims 8000 species in the group, and cites the same source I used for the figure of 3800 for the Plant#Diversity table.  The table on this page is a recent and careful assessment of numbers from authoritative sources, with citations as given.  --EncycloPetey 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green algae 

message: I've changed to plants...what plants should I use?
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Plants for Science Fair 

message: It's not a plant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct; green algae is a group of plants, not just one plant. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, green algae is also called Chlorophta which is a phylum of Protists (p. 530 Modern Biology Albert Towle et al. ISBN:0-03-017744-8)Etineskid (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Textbooks are consistently wrong on this. I recently taught an intro biology class and was astonished at the errors presented when discussion algae and plant taxonomy (maintaining that they're all called phyla instead of divisions was one of the most annoying, in fact). Rkitko (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Code finally caught up with the last one—"Phylum" and "Division" are both now acceptable, I believe since the Tokyo Code.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Algae isn't a plant 

message: The composite image looks quite good, but the Sarraceniaceae (2 photos) and Asteraceae (3) are overrepresented - the surplus pictures would be better replaced by images of other taxa to represent a broader taxonomic / structural range. Also, on closer examination some of the images are of poor quality and aren't very clear. --Graminophile (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: A couple editors agreed that they'd be available to focus on this article for an improvement drive. I thought we'd start off by cobbling together a to-do list. One of the most difficult things is being comprehensive without being overwhelming. Items that seem to be missing or needed:
#In-line references.
#History. Haeckel isn't mentioned in text, just captions and taxobox. Previous treatments before "Plantae"?
#Summary style for the major divisions Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seed plants.
#Prose needed for "Factors affecting growth" lists.
#Proper lead.
#Summary style discussion of plant anatomy and plant morphology? Or will those topics be thoroughly discussed when taking care of #3? No, there are general features of organization, cellular structure, and physiology that are common to all (or almost all) plants.--EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of trying to cover the major divisions (taxonomic sense), it might be better to cover Green algae, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Seeds plants, since each of these has its own article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. That's pretty much what I had in mind. That organization will cover discussion of all the divisions, which is what is important. --Rkitko (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it is necessary to have two pteridophyt images, and I'd by far favor an image offruit on plant than those raspberries, which look out of place. Maybe replace the black background images with natural setting ones too? Overall, it's a good improvement, though. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the excellent feedback. I agree about the two Pteridophyta images and the fruit. Got any ideas for replacements? I personally like the black background images, but I have no problem with changing them. --Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: re: artificial BG, these look just as out of place as the raspberry image, because all the other were made in obviously natural settings. As for fruit images, there's :Image:Apricots.jpg, :Image:Plums.jpg, or :Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, from FP. Circeus (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of ideas come to mind, but here are three technical points. (1) The new image has much better contrast and resolution in the images, so that it is possible to tell what you're looking at.  This is an improvement. (2) The current image is about 100K, which will load rather quickly.  The new image is 2.5M, which will not be good for slower connections. (3) All the yellows and reds are in the lower half of the image, which unabalances the colors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback :-) Regarding image size, I wanted to use the lossless png format, which punches up the file size. But the thumbnails that will be on the page only register a difference of 41KB of the current photo to the 209KB of the proposed image. Not much of a difference. I'll see what I can do about the colors. --Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, talk about timing lol. I personally think it's a great image. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The file size is still 2.5M though.  Try moving the bottom row to the second row position (and shifting everything else down).  I think that would balance the reds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give the row shifting a try tomorrow. I think you may be right about that; I'll just have to play around with it a bit more. I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the file size. It won't slow down the loading of this page much more than the current image does for slower connections. And clicking on the image to get to the image page reveals a 535KB thumbnail of the image. The only way a user would get the full 2.5M image is if they click through (twice) to the full res image. Not sure many will do that and I'm not sure we'd want to sacrifice any of the image's quality. I'll report back in tomorrow with the shifted row version to see how that looks. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go - version three has the rows shifted. Better? --Rkitko (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PLANTS|WikiProject Plants]] improvement drive 

message: To address the concerns of the editor's message above our improvement drive here, I tried to create a better image for the taxobox. Comments, concerns? Most divisions are represented and I included images from the two largest families. Black border is easily changed. --Rkitko (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is necessary to have two pteridophyt images, and I'd by far favor an image offruit on plant than those raspberries, which look out of place. Maybe replace the black background images with natural setting ones too? Overall, it's a good improvement, though. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the excellent feedback. I agree about the two Pteridophyta images and the fruit. Got any ideas for replacements? I personally like the black background images, but I have no problem with changing them. --Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: re: artificial BG, these look just as out of place as the raspberry image, because all the other were made in obviously natural settings. As for fruit images, there's :Image:Apricots.jpg, :Image:Plums.jpg, or :Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, from FP. Circeus (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of ideas come to mind, but here are three technical points. (1) The new image has much better contrast and resolution in the images, so that it is possible to tell what you're looking at.  This is an improvement. (2) The current image is about 100K, which will load rather quickly.  The new image is 2.5M, which will not be good for slower connections. (3) All the yellows and reds are in the lower half of the image, which unabalances the colors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback :-) Regarding image size, I wanted to use the lossless png format, which punches up the file size. But the thumbnails that will be on the page only register a difference of 41KB of the current photo to the 209KB of the proposed image. Not much of a difference. I'll see what I can do about the colors. --Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, talk about timing lol. I personally think it's a great image. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The file size is still 2.5M though.  Try moving the bottom row to the second row position (and shifting everything else down).  I think that would balance the reds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give the row shifting a try tomorrow. I think you may be right about that; I'll just have to play around with it a bit more. I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the file size. It won't slow down the loading of this page much more than the current image does for slower connections. And clicking on the image to get to the image page reveals a 535KB thumbnail of the image. The only way a user would get the full 2.5M image is if they click through (twice) to the full res image. Not sure many will do that and I'm not sure we'd want to sacrifice any of the image's quality. I'll report back in tomorrow with the shifted row version to see how that looks. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go - version three has the rows shifted. Better? --Rkitko (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Isn't it outdated? I don't see it followed elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor much elsewhere. So why is it used here? Narayanese (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference is a reference. Many of the organisms called algae left the plant kingdom in the 1970s, and they haven't been back.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more the bit about "are now included" I didn't like, but oh well, perhaps the  difference between writing "Kingdom Plantae" and "protists" is enough to hint that the latter isn't a formal classification. Narayanese (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You may not see it used much in current scientific publications on taxonomy, but it is still predominant in textbooks at all levels.  The issue must be addressed, or users will complain that our coverage is lacking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the sentence manages to call cyanobacteria protists. Narayanese (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five kingdom classification 

message: *Wie nennt sich das in der Fachsprache?
*Ist das nicht eines der wichtigsten Entwicklungsmerkmale des Klimas und des Klimawandels?
*Was sind die chemischen Prozesse in diesem Zusammenhang (Photosyntese?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im Frühling wird die Biosphäre (Pflanzen) von Süden nach Norden grün 

message: It's really wordy, plus it goes off-topic and discusses things that have nothing to do with plants. 2-3 rows should be enough to describe how non-plant they are. Narayanese (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "descripotion" of fungi.  There is an explanation of why fungi are no longer included among the plants, which is an important explanation to include, since for centuries they were lumped together. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the first and last sentence describe why. And what's that thing about fungi only being saprophytes and parasites? That ignores the large number of fungi that are symbionts of predators or photosynthetic organisms and thus do not obtain nutrients by themselves. Narayanese (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a summary article, and the fugi section summarizes differences between two kingdoms.  It is not about the minutiae or explaining every exception and case that exists.  A summary...summarizes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: To me the current text is roughly the right level of detail in terms of saying not just that they are a totally different kingdom, but why, and then pointing to other articles rather than going into detail here. Kingdon (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungi section 

message: i think there should be an article on here that describes plant needs and groth in more depth
--Olkni599 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several such articles started, including Plant physiology, Plant nutrition, and Meristem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant needs 

message: There seems to be precious little here on plant reproduction. Evercat (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main articles on that topic are reproduction and alternation of generations.  It is unlikely that this general article on plants will ever have more than a summary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction 

message: The fundamental problem with this page is this: confusion concerning the definition of the terms "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae".  
These terms have been used so many different ways over the years, that "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" have little useful technical meaning.  Here's some history.
1) At one time we used to classify all organisms as being either plants or animals (The two kingdom system).  Plants included Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi, Algae, Bryophytes, vascular plants, slime moulds, and perhaps a few other groups.
2) When it was recognized that Prokaryotes were a fundamentally distinct group, the original concept of "plant" and "Kingdom Plantae" was discarded.  In the new three kingdom system, the Bacteria and Archaea were transferred to the new Kingdom Monera.  This considerably narrowed our concept of plants.
3) It was eventually recognised that the three kingdom system was also flawed.  A five kingdom system was introduced, with a new Kingdom Fungi, and a Kingdom Protista (or Proctoctista).  In this system, the concept of "plants" and "Kingdom Plantae" was further narrowed, and limited to include only bryophytes and vascular plants.  All eukaryotic algae were transferred to the Kingdom Protista.  The Protista however was always an ill-defined assemblage of organisms - consisting of a grab-bag of organisms that didn't fit conveniently into the other kingdoms.
4) The flaws in this system became especially apparent with the advent of modern, detailed molecular phylogenetic studies.  Baldauf et al.  (2003: Science 300: 1703-1706) recognised that the eukaryotes consisted of a series of different clades (e.g., Opisthokonts, Heterokonts, etc).  These clades have little correspondence to our old system of five Kingdoms.  It is forcing a major rethink of our kingdom system - and the dust hasn't settled.  One of Baldauf et al.'s  clades was labelled "Plants".  It comprised the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants.  Confused??
5) This assemblage of organisms has now been renamed Archaeplastida.  The major subdivisions of the Archaeplastida are the Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, and Viridiplantae.  The Viridiplantae comprise the Chlorophyta, other green algae, bryophytes and vascular plants.  The term Embryophytes can be used to collectively and unambiguously to refer to the bryophyte and vascular plant collective. 
So my suggestion - rename this page as "Viridiplantae" (or perhaps move it to Viridiplantae).  The content best fits with this concept.  Introduce a new "Plant" page that explains this history.  It can serve as a source for disambiguation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.194.170 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In passing, reading the Archaeplastida article, it sounds like this term has not yet achieved universal acceptance (there are rivals, for instance).  Though a biologist in a past life, I'm no taxonomist, so can't judge what the consensus view is in plant biology.  Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that it's perhaps too early to make a definitive change (some people don't seem to have accepted the 5 kingdom view yet!).  Furthermore, I'd be very reluctant to move the article about plants to an article with a title I'd not heard of 5 minutes ago.  If this were a less well-known phylogenetic group, then I'd probably not bat an eyelid, but this is probably the most significant group of organisms on the planet.  Taking a different (and possibly irrelevant) tack, can we draw any lessons from what happens over at the animal article?  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict] Oops.  Got myself a bit confused there.  "Viridiplantae" is what I should have said.  Although that too also appears to have at least one pretender to the throne (Metaphytes?).  Anyway, I guess I'd still caution against moving the article of such a significant (and commonly used) group to what might be a temporarily in-favour name.  But as I'm not a taxonomist, I'm probably just railing against the new.  Could you identify a good review of this which specifically overviews the new groups?  I can't determine whether Baldauf's (2003) scheme is in common use.  Sorry if it's just me being ignorant.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Does it exclude all green algae?  I think people might refer to seaweeds as plants (even though they're amongst the most mixed-up "groups" of autotrophs!).  Anyway, I take the point.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You have made a number of unsupported assertions.  Most everday usage I have seen would include algae within the definition of "plant", which is why this article addresses that issue.  Your creating a new article is called a "content fork" which is undesirable on Wikipedia.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I support deletion of Plant (botanical) and don't know why the AfD was closed before potential commenters had the chance to find it.  All this material is present elsewhere on wikipedia and scattering this kind of thing over a bunch of different pages makes it harder, not easier, to figure out what to say about each topic.  I also support making Viridiplantae a redirect again, at least until there can be more discussion. Kingdon (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on both points. I supported merging into plant, but there are so few references on plant (botanical) that merging would require a re-write and referencing anyway. We could take it to a deletion review or renominate it. Viridiplantae also lacks any references and reproduces material that is included here. --Rkitko (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of the fork article is actually about the various high-level classification systems, and so would belong in an article about that issue, not in the article about the Plant Kingdom specifically.  The fork article deals with issue related to the history and philosophy of classification, not with plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it belongs, not in Plant, but in Monera, Three domain system, and the like.  And guess what?  It is already in those articles.  With better references, better facts (for example, Archaeplastida as glaucophytes, red algae, and green algae is a controversial hypothesis with at least one recent paper providing evidence to the contrary), and (mostly) better writing. Kingdon (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Could all you guys please get a couple of high-school kids and ordinary non-experts together and have them look at this plant page and then tell you what a plant is?   Algae are plants.  (Apparently the most important and common ones !?!)  Fungi aren't plants but are the second most important thing on the plant page.  But then readers get lost in taxonomy all the way down to "Life processes".  What "other plants" (algae?) the author distinguishes Vascular plants from remains unclear, particularly since this follows a section mentioning Mangroves which seem to fall firmly into the vascular plant category.  That those are the "green growing" things most readers were looking for in the first place isn't obvious.  Distinguishing "Viridiplantae" from "Embryophytes" is surely very important, but should either go at the bottom in a separate section or on a separate page from a page simply called "plant" (And not Plant kingdom!) I'd vote for keeping Plant (botanical) and moving all but the most basic taxonomy/botany there. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename/Move Page? 

message: The link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't offer any obvious "plant" choices.  A basic page on Respiration (plant) seems to be missing.  Cellular respiration is too detailed to offer any identifiable information to anyone who doesn't already know what he/she is looking for coming from this page.  A step in between is needed. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the problem. The issue with Cellular respiration is not that it is too detailed, but that it isn't about the exchange of gases with plant roots at all.  At least for now, I've piped the link to Gas diffusion in soil, which should probably do OK until that article is expanded enough to need splitting (I suspect Root respiration would be the right name for an article, if there is to be a new one). Kingdon (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Root respiration would create yet another page about plants that, though probably more appropriate for experts, would leave non-experts in the dust.  Respiration is generally associated with air, and thus leaves are what people would be looking at, rather than roots, which are in the ground.  71.236.24.129 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's air in the soil. How else do you think that soil insects breathe?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he article wouldn't be for people looking for what bugs breathe but mostly for ordinary people (non-experts) who are trying to figure out what happens with the O2 and CO2 in plants.  Hence Respiration (plant)  They are thinking air-breathe-(respiration is already pushing it, but a doable jump)  I keep being flabbergasted that the botanical sections in Wikipedia are more difficult to find something in than in Particle Physics.  The goal with naming, writing and organizing articles in an encyclopedia should be to make information accessible to it's readers, not finding some clever scheme, logical explanation or structure that keeps it usable only to people deeply immersed in the field and willing to follow endless strings of links through species lists and highly specialized pages.  If you'd like a practical example check through the RefDesk archives and see how many people have failed to find things in the articles.  71.236.24.129 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respiration 

message: Plants take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.  The level of carbon dioxide can greatly affect the growth rate, at least of some plants.Friendlyinnovators (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors Affecting Growth 

message: I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a  Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.
I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, (Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.
Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.
I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.
I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...
Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life
For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composite images in taxoboxes (just like the main page for Plant) 

message: Hi, folks. I don't mean to derail the above conversation, but KP Botany asked me to do a little work on the taxobox image for this article. Curtis joined in and it was suggested I replace the Volvox image with the image from the taxobox in Desmidiales. (Conversation here). I also replaced the fern image. I'm still not entirely happy with the orchid image and simple browsing for images on the Orchidaceae at commons is maddening unless you know which species or genus you want to look for. There's always room for improvement elsewhere. Any suggestions? I believe someone (EncycloPetey?) once mentioned that it may be too long. If there are similar concerns, I can work on it while I have the files open and dusted off. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss the fiddleneck, but I love the new fern image.  Yes, it would be nice to have an obscenely gorgeous image of an orchid, imo.  I like it, Rkitko.  I don't think it has to be perfect, but attractive helps.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great composite (though so was the original), though I agree with what KP said about the orchid.  Personally I'm not a fan or roses, especially not orange ones...maybe you could replace it with an Arabidopsis :) (Not that Arabidopsis is a real plant any more...)  Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I included the rose because it's easily recognized by most people and the color just came from one of the better photos I found. It would be nice to get an Arabidopsis photo in there, too. I was also thinking some kind of fossil taxa would be nice. --Rkitko (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm probably biased (as one who lives in a house full of Cymbidiums), but seems to be like Cymbidium often illustrates the bauplan of an orchid pretty well, although I don't see a lot of good photos at commons.  One which is good is :File:Cymbidium08_black.jpg Kingdon (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a decent image. Certainly better than the current washed-out one. I'll pop it in and see how it looks. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I was unwilling to vote for Cymbidium as the orchid picture, because they seem so common, orchid wise.  However, that is actually a good reason for having a cymbidium orchid in the image, just like having the hybrid rose rather than a wild rose.  I think familiar plants enhance an image of this nature, and, really, I would rather have a Cymbidium than just about any other orchid in the image, except, of course, a spectacular profile of a Darwin orchid.  I used to live near acres of orchid greenhouses and loved to go visit them in the rain.  I like the one Kingdon picked, although I'd almost rather a pink/violet one.  Except that the image is really nice.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Is the goal of the image to circumscribe Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, or something else? --Arcadian (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that depends on the outcome of the above discussion. As it is, and if I understand all this, it currently represents Viridiplantae, but it could also represent Archaeplastida (the omission of images of the other taxa excluded from Viridiplantae but included in Archaeplastida need not alter what this composite image displays). --Rkitko (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a great change! Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox image updates 

message: I agree that the sections could be merged.Etineskid (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I couldnt find any mention of the chemical composition of plants in the article. And how does this composition vary among the plant kingdom?  I have heard it said that plants are mainly sugars (lignocellulose) and animals are mainly proteins (except maybe fat people, and not counting bones). --Smokefoot (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a subject better handled at the article Phytochemistry, which is unfortunately rather short.  The answer will depend on whether you are talking about the chemical compounds or the constituent elements.  The relative amount of constituent elements differs between plants and vertebrate mostly on the basis of the addiitonal minerals needed to construct a skeleton.  If you chose not to count bones, that also has a huge impact on your answer.  You'd need to specify which parts of each organism you want to ignore.  Additionally, the chemical composition of woody plants changes with age, since wood contains chemicals not found in non-woody tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are plants made of, aside from water 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+plant+biosafety&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.219.241 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biosafety of plant.... 

message: I was rather hoping to find an fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of plant groups listed, along the lines of Grzimek's for animals. Is there something like that? — kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no such book extant.  Most "comprehensive" books on plants either limit themselves to a single group (mosses, ferns, conifers, etc) or treat a floristic region (and cover only vascular plants).  There has also been so much change in high-level plant classification recently that any such book older than 20 years would be very outdated -- even the "classes" and orders of flowering plants have undergone enormous change in circumscription.  The best I can suggest are (1) van den Hoek's Algae, which will cover the green algae and charophytes, (2) Schofield's Introction to Bryology, which is dated but does a good job of surveying the major groups, (3) Robbin C. Morran's A Natural History of Ferns, which skimps on the "fern allies", but is up-to-date on the phylogenetics even if it does treat the subject generally, (4) Raven, Evert, & Eichhorn's Biology of Plants, which will fill in a decent survey of extant pteridophytes and gymnosperms, (5) Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants for the major extinct groups.  There is no general text I'd recommend for current angiosperm diversity, although there are a number of textbooks and lab books that do a fair job of treating the major families (e.g. Cronquist, Zomlefer, or Heywood), but you have to bear in mind that the families and relationships have changed a bit since they were published.   Cronquist in particular is very out of step with our current understanding of angiosperm classification.  Dahlgren's works do a decent morpholocial and chemical survey of the monocots. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading ... 

message: I wrote in the last edit comment: these long stretches of text in the beginning of the article are NOT about plants, pls motivate why it should be here. Each Wikipedia article should be limited to the subject that is identified by its title. There can also be something about how these things relate to other phenomena. Botany relates historically to fungi, plants ... In the systematic sense, plants do not relate to fungi at all. Ecologically there are interesting relations, for example mycorhiza. A reader surfing to the article Plant is expected to want information about plants, not about unrelated organisms, especially not in the beginning of the article. --Ettrig (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people think that fungi are plants, so a note to the reader that they are covered in a separate article would be appropriate. But not an extended amount of material. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was previously discussed here: Talk:Plant/Archive 1#Fungi section. I agree with Kingdon's assessment that the current text is the perfect level of detail for this article. It could use some references, but it should remain in the article. Rkitko (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. It shows that this has been discussed before and that the keepers were a minority, then as now. --Ettrig (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, Linnaeus classified all fungi in kingdom vegetabilia. I suppose some people might still consider them "plants". Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungi are not plants 

message: Merging Viridiplantae into this article is being discussed at Talk:Viridiplantae#Merge with Plant?. The discussion is also concerned with how this article should be organized. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Viridiplantae]] into this article 

message: I've never liked this bit from Evolutionary history of plants, which is currently repeated in this article:
The evolution of plants has resulted in increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While the groups which appeared earlier continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they evolved, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures.
If "each new grade of organisation" has become more successful than its predecessors, why are there more species of moss than of any of the more "advanced" groups except flowering plants? If species diversity is a measure of evolutionary success (and it seems as good a measure to me as any other) then the "bryophyte" grade as a whole is much more successful than any other land plants except flowering plants. This is not what you would deduce from the quote above. I'll leave this note here for a few days, because the paragraph has been around for a while, but then unless there are reasoned objections, I'm going to change it, both here and at Evolutionary history of plants. The notion of "evolution as inevitable progress" is far too seductive, and needs to be tackled at every opportunity. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That last sentence did strike me. I think moss would reject that you have to be tall to be a success in this universe, regardless the empirically grounded comparisons promised by that stuff about "most measures". I agree with you, is what I'm saying, and I will make the deletion for now.-Tesseract2(talk) 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'd forgotten about this and my intention to edit the paragraph. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution as progress 

message: Plants are highly distributed in tropical areas than the other areas in the planet Earth. Angiosperms are mainly distributed and highly developed in tropical areas. Gymnosperms (mainly conifers ) are found in cool areas like Siberia and Canada. The most diversified ecosystems are found in tropical rainforest areas. Therefore plants' diversification affects plants' distribution.
Kiruthikane (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Request rejected. It's unclear where you want this information inserted and whether you have references for the assertions. Rkitko (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 January 2012 

message: As a gardener (of flowers, vegetables, and fruit) I find Wikipedia invaluable. But the format currently adopted does not usually refer to diseases, pests, and methods of propagation (and what to do about the first two). Of course one can get something on the internet about all this. But for commonly grown plants a standard format which included these as separate sections would be very useful.
--Markd999 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is why you won't find information that describes how to propagate or what to do if a disease or pest is found. Some articles do include descriptions of pests and diseases that typically afflict certain plants, but we must use reliable sources that contain this information as our references. Rkitko (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diseases, pests, and propagation 

message: My contribution no longer requires Microsoft Silverlight. 
T.M.Jones (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Right now that link isn't working for me at all - it's giving me an error about HTML. For right now I'm not going to change anything, hopefully it will work better for another editor... --ElHef (Meep?) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: I get the error  from http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/aca/ which I presume is the link you are referring to, from your previous addition to Botany. Feel free to reactivate the request if the content becomes accessible. Thanks. Begoon talk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 June 2013 

message: Requesting that this line:
Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
be changed to this:
Growth is also determined by environmental factors, such as temperature, available water, available light, carbon dioxide, and available nutrients in the soil. Any change in the availability of these external conditions will be reflected in the plants growth.
The concentration of carbon dioxide is vital for and directly related to plant growth; the greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the faster the growth until other factors such as plant type and other nutrients' availability limit it.  Thus, carbon dioxide should be included in the list of environmental factors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request June 11, 2013 

message: Would one of the images located here or here be useful for illustrating worldwide plant distribution? Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetation as Seen by Suomi NPP 

message: So in the side menu to the right of the page, under the heading of "Land plants" it is listed this way: 
Land plants (embryophytes)
Non-vascular land plants (bryophytes)
   •Marchantiophyta—liverworts
   •Anthocerotophyta—hornworts
   •Bryophyta—mosses
   •†Horneophytopsida
Vascular plants (tracheophytes)
   •†Rhyniophyta—rhyniophytes
   •†Zosterophyllophyta—zosterophylls
   •Lycopodiophyta—clubmosses
   •†Trimerophytophyta—trimerophytes
   •Pteridophyta—ferns and horsetails
   •†Progymnospermophyta
Seed plants (spermatophytes)
   •†Pteridospermatophyta—seed ferns
   •Pinophyta—conifers
   •Cycadophyta—cycads
   •Ginkgophyta—ginkgo
   •Gnetophyta—gnetae
   •Magnoliophyta—flowering plants
So... seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.145.148 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Divisions - So seed plants (spermatophytes) are not vascular plants? 

message: After the text,
   A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae, after Kenrick and Crane,[24] is as follows, with    
   modification to the Pteridophyta from Smith et al.
at the bottom of the article, the following table is showing me gibberish
with lots of 'expansion depth exceeded' messages.
Seen In Chromium browser (v 31.0.1650.63 )
87.127.79.193 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. I believe the problem was a recent edit to , diff. I'm not an expert in template editing, but after the edit was undone, the tree on this page was restored with no "expansion depth exceeded" errors. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout problem

message: The text in section 1.3 of the article, "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.", is not cited.
Would somebody please cite it for me? The corrected text would be as follows: "Molecular evidence has since shown that the most recent common ancestor (concestor), of the Fungi was probably more similar to that of the Animalia than to that of Plantae or any other kingdom.".
Thank you. 99.120.10.54 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation. You can read more about that at the Fungus page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request- October 21, 2014 

message: the opening sentance proclaims that "Plants are one of the two groups into which all living things are traditionally divided; the other is animals".  This is totally wrong, there are infat several more divisions of life such as fungi, bacteria, ect.  I'm amazed that such an important article could be written so poorly.  And to be locked on top of it...97.91.179.137 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The key word is "traditionally". When I was in high school we were still being taught that all living things were either animals or plants, although the texts did admit that Euglena was a problem, as it was both self-mobile and had chlorophyll. -- Donald Albury 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be clearer if "all living things are" is changed to "all living things were". Rkitko (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't YOU change it? Hello! Cadiomals (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer the question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. Don't change it. The plants and animals were the traditional groups, no matter what the current kingdoms are. Kitty 56 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  innacurate opening 

message: This article is very confusing – a product of the many competing visions of what a plant is.  Some editors, and the opening sentence, have tried to force the article to address one modern interpretation of the word plant (i.e., the Viridaeplantae), but the article's focus needs to emphasize that the meaning of the term plant has evolved with the biological classification system. It is also very clear that different people now use the word plant to mean quite different things. That needs to be clearly stated, and the current and historical diversity of usage needs to be emphasized in the article.  In essence the heart of article should be about disambiguation... For more precise groupings readers should be referred to the separate articles on Archaeplastida, Viridiplantae, and Embryophyta. The current article is an incoherent mess! ––(signature added) 09:04, 21 April 2015 Lesfreck
:I agree the article badly needs making more coherent. On the other hand, there is a field of study called "plant science" or "botany" whose objects of study are "plants", however defined. Countless "Floras" are in existence, listing the plants of different areas. "Plant" is a slightly fuzzy concept, yes, but still an important one. So I don't agree that the reader should primarily be directed to different articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite needed - 21 Apr 2015 

message: Maybe it's just me, but this is how the phylogenetic tree in the #Evolution section looks like for me. Can someone who is able to do that, fix it please? :) Thx. --Thogo 09:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me. What browser are you using? There are some known issues with  regarding how different browsers render the code. --Rkitko (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Firefox (current revision). Hm, well, if it's ok for most people, then better leave it at that. ^^ --Thogo 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Def not OK. I see it broken just as Thogodoes, using both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer.  If the code  fails for those browsers there needs to be a fix. Plantsurfer 20:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is really strange. It looks perfectly fine to me in Chrome, but get this -- I always browse Wikipedia with the browser zoomed out to 90%. Try it by pressing Ctrl and -. Zoomed out, it looks fine. Zoom back in to 100%, and it's broken. So odd... Anyway, I think the two edits made to  in November 2014 were responsible for this broken display. I tested the template before those changes and it performed as expected. I've reverted the changes to the template back to the version before November 2014 and the cladogram here is fixed. Let me know if the problem persists for you in different browsers. Rkitko (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, it works perfectly now, regardless of zoom level, in both Chrome and Internet Explorer. Plantsurfer 06:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, thanks for the repair. :) --Thogo 16:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  phylogenetic tree broken 

message: It says "Early Cambrian" but it shows the Middle Cambrian what's sup with that and please someone please fix that. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporal Range WRONG?! 

message: The photosynthesis equation is not balanced.  Change "O2" to "6O2".   67.70.42.104 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015 

message: A lot of people refer to certain types of algae as a plant and many scientists refer to single celled plants.
If that is the case, is the beginning sentence of plants being multi-cellular only an accurate one?
Chris Fletcher (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Many people only regard Embryophytes as plants, but the article treats Viridiplantae as plants, and not all
members of that clade are multicellular. Plantsurfer 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single/Multi cellular 

message: The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Green plants" ? 

message: The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the figure '300-315 thousand' accurate? 

message: Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  beneficial characterstics of plants  

message: I understand there's an issue around the paraphyly of the green algae. However, this article is about a (much) larger group, the plants as a whole, and the article's title is a common English name, so readers from school age upwards can reasonably expect at least the lead section to be simple and welcoming. I suggest, therefore, that we should not be launching into discussions of whether a particular group of plants happens to be paraphyletic - the job of the lead section is to give an overview of the plants as a whole, by summarizing the article as a whole. Taxonomic intricacies are not the priority there, specially in the first paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, provided the lead makes clear that although "plant" was an unproblematic term in the past, it has different definitions now. But the lead isn't the place to go into fine details of those definitions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: Currently, the beginning of the article decisively declares that "Plant" is synonymous with Viridiplantae. This unnecessarily narrows the scope of the article to only one technical definition from one discipline (biology). Even from a biological standpoint, this is contradicted immediately when the actual ambiguity of the term is unfolded under Definition. If the scope of this article is supposed to be limited to Viridiplantae, why is there also a Viridiplantae article? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps that's a little harsh, as the clade is only one element of the first paragraph, but in essence you have a point. The lead should summarize the body of the article, including any ambiguities it may have, and definition is certainly one of those. The lead might better say something along the lines of "As currently understood by botanists, the green plants are equivalent to the clade Viridiplantae, but ..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right about my sounding harsh. Sorry! I went ahead and changed the paragraph (before I saw your suggested wording, which may be better). Anyway, I suppose it was more an error in summary than the scope of the whole article. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

text: As a more general point, should the opening sentence (now a standalone paragraph) emphasise the multicellularity of plants when many green algae are not multicellular? The most characteristic feature of plants is that they are photosynthetic autotrophs and as such form the basis of most terrestrial food chains. I can see why the lede starts with trying to describe the scope of the term, but perhaps multicellularity should be dealt with later. If photosynthesis can wait, so can multicellularity. Alternatively, the sentence should be made less absolute ("mainly/predominantly multicellular", "multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives") and/or more general (e.g. "a group of photsynthetic autotrophs including the multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives"). I note that the issue of multicellularity has been raised before, so won't make changes as I'm not sure of the history of why it retained in such a prominent position. I do see that defining a plant in a simple manner is actually an extremely difficult issue (harder than reptiles). Jts1882 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added a couple of words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in scope 

message: Hi!
The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)
However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.
I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 
: I looked the citations, and the citations seems to be mostly unrelated. First citation refers to some history in 1800 where some researcher at that time made a hypothesis. It is a fact that there was a person who made a hypothesis, but that does not make the hypothesis true. Second citation says in abstract that plants "lack central nervous systems", exactly opposite of the claims in article. --Thv (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Immune system" section still (at 22 Mar 2017) contains a reference to "cells that behave like nerves", and suggests that bundle sheath cells perform a nerve-like signaling function. The reference for this content is a 2010 BBC news feature, reviewing the paper "Secret Life of Plants" (S. Karpinski, M. Szechynska-Hebda; Plant Signalling & Behaviour; Nov 2010; 5:11; pp1391-1394). This paper is - to be generous - extremely heterodox; it makes many claims not found in the mainstream of plant science. Passages such as "...plants are capable of processing information encrypted in light intensity and in its energy", "...plants are able to perform biological quantum computation and memorize light training in order to optimize their Darwinian fitness" and "It is suggested that plants could be intelligent organisms with much higher organism organization levels than it was thought before" give some indication of the flavour of this paper. Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation; an interesting but uncontentious paper (D. Peak et al;Evidence for complex collective dynamics and emergent distributed computation in plants; PNAS;Jan 2004; 101:4; pp918-922) is cited out of context, with the term "cellular automata" incorrectly referred to as "cellular automation", to support the thesis of plant computation capabilities. While this is not my domain (I'm a computer systems engineer), I believe this section should be reviewed by a domain expert, and updated to reflect a modern consensus view of this aspect of plant biology. --FredV (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I think your comment "Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation" is an excellent assessment.  Jargon for jargon's sake and no clarity. The section in the Plant article, as written, is worse than useless (it detracts from the whole article and Wikipedia in general). It says nothing clearly or accurately and has two separate parts: one about the paper you mention and another about the receptor and signalling molecules that could be an immune system. The text should briefly summarise what is in Plant_disease_resistance#Immune_system and aspects that don't make the grade there shouldn't be in this article. Jts1882 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant nerves and feelings? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302040410/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html to http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226232147/http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf to http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626102452/http://images.algaebase.org/pdf/5628E58F0ecc431F0CsJm2B04CAD/49951.pdf to http://images.algaebase.org/pdf/5628E58F0ecc431F0CsJm2B04CAD/49951.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biochemj.org/bj/388/0151/bj3880151.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified