Talk:Drosera

message: This is shaping up as a fine article - almost there.  I assume that the authors are looking towards WP:FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind comments. I was looking towards the quality of an FAC anyway... I'm not sure that I was set on nominating it in the near future. Do you have any preliminary suggestions on how to make the article better? A section on cultivation and a section on environmental status are still coming. I was then going to iron out some wrinkles, add some inline citations, maybe add additional material as it comes to mind, and submit it for review. --NoahElhardt 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FAC]]

message: Here is an image I took near Boranup, near Margaret River. I will look up and try to attach a name to it. i didn't stick it on the page yet as i am a newcomer :) Cas Liber 06:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost certain this is in fact D. glanduligera. The leaf morphology and flower color matches. This species has the fastest-moving tentacles in the sundew genus! After contact with an insect, the outher tentacles (called "snap" tentacles) will bend toward the inside of a leaf within a matter of a few tenths of a second! --NoahElhardt 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image from SW Western Australia 

message: Doesn't the cladogram need a scale? Usually a scale gives percent divergence for a single-gene phylogeny or some indication of time or the extent of evolutionary divergence for other relationships. However, the Cladistics page says that this isn't always the case. Which kind is this diagram? TimVickers 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-read the entire Cladistics page and am no more enlightened on cladogram scales than I was before. This does not necessarily reflect incorrectness on your part, but could instead be due to a lack of breadth of the article. If I remember correctly, the study in question used several gene lines to determine the results. However, the cladogram published with the article (see ) does in fact appear to have a scale of sorts, as well as other numbers that are used to indicate divergence concepts I don't even pretend to understand. I will make an attempt (probably tomorrow) to come to a basic understanding of the scale used and the meaning of the other numbers in order to see if I can rig up some sort of meaningful and halfway accurate scale on the article cladogram. If you have any insight on this, I would be grateful to hear it. You have also reminded me of the importance of the outgroups in this cladogram, and I hope to add the most pertinent ones tomorrow as well. --NoahElhardt 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I could help if this dealt with a single gene, but I get a bit lost after that. TimVickers 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phylogeny

message: I corrected the illogical negative "unable" and replaced it with "able" here:
The insects are used to supplement the poor mineral nutrition that sundews are able to obtain from the soil they grow in.
but according to the article, this should probably be changed to something like this:
The insects are used to supplement the poor mineral nutrition that sundews are able to obtain from the poor soils they (can therefore) grow in.
or this:
The insects are used to supplement the plants' poor ability to absorb mineral nutritions from the soil they grow in.
The article doesn't seem to say whether they grow in poor soils because they can digest insects or if they developed the ability to digest insects because they at some evolutionary stage grew in increasingly poor soils.
--Espoo 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting this. You are correct in what you are pointing out: The plants have poor nutrient-uptake abilities, and they are able to grow in nutrient-poor soils only because of their carnivory. However, the original (corrected) version is the most objective. There is no need to get into the possible (and involved) evolutionary or cause-and-effect relationships here in the intro. Does that make sense? --NoahElhardt 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and OK. But are you saying the article does or should talk about this later? I was not able to find any mention. Perhaps there should at least be a link. Do you know where there are discussions of this topic?  --Espoo 21:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place that this topic is covored right now is in the evolution and ecology sections of the article on carnivorous plants. It's not a subject I'm much of an expert on, but it might be worth adding a few sentences to this article as well. Would you like to give it a shot? --NoahElhardt 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks (to you and the authors of that article) - very interesting and very lengthy. (Should be made into a new article on evolution and ecology of carnivorous plants, or one on each part of that, and presented in easier and drastically shortened form in carnivorous plants.) I'll have to re-read it though because it doesn't seem to answer or discuss this question chicken/egg question directly. In any case, it would probably be best to not summarise anything here and to just provide a link and point out that the topic (or a related one) is discussed in that other article. --Espoo 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  expert needed 

message: Hi,  can anyone identify this sundew? It's about 2.5 cm in diameter.--Slashme (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sundew identification needed 

message: I think that a section about the culture of sundews should be added since these plants are commonly grown by people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.67.218 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a section, Drosera#As ornamental plants. If you're asking for cultivation information, note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: I'm not a plant expert, but while uploading some particularly nice pics of plants I found on flickr to commons, I added a complete, flowering specimen of Drosera citrina. If anyone's interested, it could go for a stub, and the pic might possibly have a place in-context in this article, too, simply because of the concept of otherwise-carnivorous plants throwing flowers up disproportionately higher than its low-lying traps so as not to ensnare the pollinators (well, not during flowering season, anyway :P). --slakr\ talk / 07:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moar pix, but for a redlinked article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drosera. 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/20080218095109/http://virtuelle.gefil.de:80/~chrusty/droserakeyeng.htm to http://virtuelle.gefil.de/~chrusty/droserakeyeng.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the discussion on flowering, speculation about the purpose of long-stalked flowers is unsupported, at least by the source given. The referenced study only mentions that there is stratification between the prey and flower visitor species. This equilibrium could just as easily affirm the theory as challenge it. I'm removing the speculation for now, and reformatting the surrounding text appropriately. Diewelt (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations on Flowering 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drosera. 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/20060819185734/http://science.calm.wa.gov.au/nuytsia/15/3/355-394.pdf to http://science.calm.wa.gov.au/nuytsia/15/3/355-394.pdf
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) 01:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: B 122.163.249.211 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It do sex