Talk:Moss

message: This page should say how many species of moss there are. --Savant13 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of species

message: Um -- could we start a little simpler?  This article doesn't really answer "What is moss?" unless you know an awful lot of botany to start with. (And the story about moss being on the north side of trees is said to have helped to make many people even more lost!) Oak 17:24, 04 November 2005
:I agree that this article doesn't do a good job in the introduction of clarifying what a moss is for the non-specialist.  Part of the problem is that in casual English, the word moss means "green scummy thing on a rock or tree".  Many times, the word is applied to a liverwort, alga, or even to some bromeliads (Spanish "moss", a flowering plant) indiscriminately. To distinguish true moss (the subject of this article) from those other plants requires a level of technical description that can be very hard to bring down to the level or the casual reader. The required terminology just doesn't have an equivalent in casual speech. -- EncycloPetey 14:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Start it simpler

message: While dioecious is the correct spelling of that word (in both Commonwealth and American English), it is not the correct spelling for the word dioicous, which is another word entirely.  In botany, a plant that is dioecious is a diploid sporophyte that produces either microsporangia or megasporangia, but not both on the same plant. A plant that is dioicous is a haploid gametophyte that produces either antheridia or archegonia, but not both on the same plant.  So while seed plants may be either monecious or dioecious, they are all dioicous.  Bryophytes produce only a single kind of sporangium, and so cannot be truly described as either monecious or dioecious. There are fundamental differences in the life cycle that necessitate a different vocabulary among bryologists.  --
EncycloPetey 16:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dioicous vs dioecious

message: While this article is pretty good, unfortunately it is almost completely unsourced, and the good article criteria stresses that all material in the article must be verifiable and cited. Once everything's cited, feel free to nominate this article again! Krimpet (talk/review) 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: This image was removed becuase it was a little blurry. Yes, it's blurry, but it's the only picture on the page that demonstrates the physical scale of moss.  I would love to see a better picture, but until such a picture is available, it makes more sense to retain the information conveyed by the picture than to simply delete it for being less than ideal. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your request, I've made it part of my to-do list to take a shot of moss (perhaps 2-3 types if I can find them) with a ruler beside it. -- KirinX 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Further to that, I still don't think that the image demonstrates scale to a definitive degree anyways, as ants come in many sizes (albeit all are fairly small, but so too can that be said for mosses -- I'm certainly unaware of any large mosses), and for the fact that there are two pictures of trees featuring different types of mosses on the stump or on the trunk of the trees.  It's not unreasonable to believe people would have the same ease (or difficulty) in ascertaining scale from any of the pictures, closeups not included.  In all honesty, I cannot see why you are defending the removal of this picture to the degree you are.  Forgive my shortsightedness.  -- KirinX 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which type of ant is it? How big is the ant? How much moss is he standing on? I can't tell from that image, it tells me nothing about moss. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture could definitely be imporoved (and should!).  I disagree with the arguments about moss on the sides of trees demonstrating scale, though.  Some trees may trunks less than a half a foot in diameter, while others may have trunk bases over five feet in diameter (especially in tropical regions).  I would have put in a replacement image long ago, but all my good moss images are on photographic slides and I have no way to scan them currently. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ant on moss image 

message: I was researching mosses on the internet and came across a site with language identical to text in the "Cultivation" section and "Mossery" subsection of this page. It is unclear to me which site is borrowing from which; whichever way it is, the borrowing is not acknowledged, nor could I readily find source notes on either site that would clear up the uncertainty. The site in question is http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/moss/cultivation.html.  --ValliNagy  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That site is presenting Wikipedia content.  You can see the notice at the bottom of the page, and I can find other sections of this same article quoted there which I am certain did not come from that site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation problem? 

message: Does it say anything about growth rate of moss here?  Didn't see it but came here looking for that specifically. Icemuon (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moss" is a division-level taxon of about 12,000 different species.  Looking for growth rate information on "moss" is like looking for growth rate information on "flowering plants".  That sort of information isn't relevant to a high-level grouping where the information will be so highly variable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth rate

message: Can we add to the life cycle portion, which generation is reproduced through Meiosis vs. Mitosis? Elleacampbell (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both generations are produced by mitosis, since both start from a single cell that divides (by mitosis) to become multicellular.  Only the spores are produced by meiosis (this is true for all land plants), and that information is already presented in the article under "Life cycle". --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meiosis vs. mitosis

message: I would like to add a link to the External Links section of this page.
I maintain a site which mostly consists of photographs of mosses.
The site url is: http://www.andrewspink.nl/mosses/
The site title is: Andrew's Moss Site (photos of mosses)
Andrew Spink
Andrewspink (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .We usually do not link to external sites unless they provide a significant source of information that is not likely to be included in the article.  I've looked at your site ad many of your pictures are of liverworts.  It is not just about mosses, but is about bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). It would not be appropriate to link from the Moss article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, it's likely that Andrewspink is using the English word "moss" incorrectly. In many (?most) Germanic languages, the cognate of "moss" is more generic than in modern English. For example in German "Moos" (plural "Moose")  includes mosses, liverworts and hornworts which are "Laubmoose", "Lebermoose" and "Hornmoose" respectively. Noting that his website is in the Netherlands, I'm assuming the same is true of Dutch. In Modern English, "moss" does not include "liverwort". Thus Watson's classic text on British bryophytes is called "British Mosses and Liverworts"; it could not be called just "British Mosses". Peter coxhead (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: There are some places in the article where the implication is that mosses generally (as opposed to some mosses or even most mosses) require moist habitats to live in; these statements are not clearly sourced. What can be sourced is that mosses are actually more tolerant of dehydration than almost all vascular plants: "vegetative DT [=desiccation tolerance] is rare, except among bryophytes. Evolution of this trait was important in facilitating the colonization of the land, but was lost subsequently in vascular plants."  Here's one example from the article as at 01:29, 19 April 2011 which concerns me: "Since mosses have no vascular system to carry water through the plant, they must have a damp environment in which to live, and a surrounding of liquid water to reproduce." This seems to me to be misleading of mosses generally. Mosses like Tortula muralis (Wall Screw-moss) are commonly found on walls in full sun in the British Isles; there's nothing "damp" about this environment. Although mosses don't have the tissues which botanists call 'vascular', many do have water-conducting systems. Although there must be moisture for the very last stage of fertilization, this can be provided by rain, so that only a very temporary "surrounding of liquid water" is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is one of the most common misconceptions about mosses and about bryophytes in general.  Most bryophytes only need free water for a short period, because they have a rapid life cycle, or because they dehydrate completely during the dry season, or because they live in rain forests (tropical or temperate) where there is daily precipitation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't entirely agree that the text is misleading.  That full sun wall in the British Isles is going to be pretty damp whenever it rains and for some time afterwards.  It does rain quite often in most of the British Isles, as I understand.  The text does say that mosses can survive months of dessication and can grow in sunny seasonally dry habitats (like your wall).  I don't have a good technical source for this, but sounds like you do; please add it.  I also do not have a good technical source for information on moss water conduction so I do not want to go into details about it in the text.  I also thought a general audience might not care. Sounds like you do have a good source, though, and could easily add it.  The more references and the more technical, the better!  Dog Walking Girl (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tortula muralis is not limited to the British Isles.  It also grows commonly across North America, including California and Nevada, where it doesn't rain for many months at a time.  The plant still thrives even without water for much of the year.  Hence, the information about mosses growing only in damp environments is very misleading; it's a common misconception and many people try to refit the facts to this preconception.  But the preconception is incorrect.  I expect to add fuller information about water and bryophytes, but don't have the time to invest in such a large undertaking right now, in part because of work and in part because I don't have easy access to a great library anymore.  It will have to wait until I have some significant time off work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another water-related point is the issue of water uptake by rhizoids.  The article states "Mosses do not absorb water or nutrients from their substrate through their rhizoids". Is this a verifiable fact? I doubt that the rhizoids are any less absorptive than other parts of a moss gametophyte.  Plantsurfer (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosses and water 

message: I honestly cant see anything in the picture that has to do with moss. If I'm wrong its fine, but..Im just not seeing it. Should we replace it without something more accurate? I just don't think it should have to be this hard to discern the meaning of a picture. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is artwork but it is indubitably an illustration of many different mosses and not much else.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem for many readers is that the prominent features in the image are sporophytes, whereas non-specialists would expect to see a predominantly green gametophyte. I think it would be better to use an image in the taxobox which showed mostly a gametophyte with some sporophytes, something like :File:Polytrichum.commune.2.jpg, although this looks a bit under-saturated to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I do quite like the current taxobox image. The Polytrichum image looks like a scanned image from a transparency which has been enhanced. I think that we should be able to do better than that.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Polytrichum is also a moss with highly atypical morphology.  I think the dual emphasis of the current image is far better than any photograph I've seen thus far on Commons (and I've been looking).  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the lead image wrong? 

message: Please change "mites can effect moss fertilization" to "mites can affect moss fertilization" because effect is a noun and affect is a verb.
98.171.161.52 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with thanks. NiciVampireHeart 23:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 July 2013 

message: This page is not actually about moss, but about bryophyta. It needs to be renamed, and a new page established about moss. The source of the confusion is that "moss" is typically used by botanists as a synonym for "bryophyta". However, this is jargon. "Moss" is not a term from botanical taxonomy, but a word with meaning and usage that far predates modern biological taxonomy, and it does not correlate with bryophyta. In fact, although most mosses are bryophytes, some, such as Spanish moss, are totally unrelated and anatomically dissimilar. Ed Uber
Ed Uber (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I prefer articles like this to be at the scientific name. On the other hand, "Bryophyta" and "bryophyte" are also problematic, since although some sources do use Bryophyta in the narrow meaning of the old class Musci, the informal term is still widely used for the paraphyletic group. (There's a similar problem for Fern.) There could, I suppose, be a Set Index Article at "List of plants known as moss" which disambiguated the uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2014 

message: There are two instances of "a moss" in the article, which could be replaced with "moss".
83.83.9.234 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be, but this would make less sense in my view than the existing text. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Bryum capillare leaf cells.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 30, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Bryum capillare leaf cells.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: First, I am no expert. I was looking for info. I noticed a couple of items. First, the paragraph: "They appear to be the closest living relatives of the vascular plants." needs clarification. Based on location, I think "they" is Polytrichopsida. But this could easily be wrong. Second, I changed this wikilink: Bryophyta to Bryophyta. This had caused me a lot of confusion, but I think I have the distinction between bryophytes and Bryophyta straight. I know it points to a "disambiguation" page but this did more to clarify the moss classification than anything else. User-duck (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to a disambiguation page is bad practice. "Bryophyta" as a taxon is now simply the scientific name for mosses alone, so is a potential alternative name for the article, and would normally be in bold. I think the statement should be moved higher up in the lead section. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The page Bryophyta is a disambiguation page, and should not be linked to in text like this. Bryophyte is a valid place to link, so your change was not warranted. One should not replace a directly targeted link with a link to a disambiguation page. Also, "Bryophyta" in the sense of Moss is covered by the page Moss (see taxobox), and also should not be linked from here because the topic is covered on this very page. We don't create links from a page that merely point back to the same page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I have rewritten the text concerning closest living relatives, as the text was misplaced, somewhat confusing, and not accepted under current hypotheses about land plant phylogeny. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moss. 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/20070205225446/http://gardening.wsu.edu/library/lawn003/lawn003.htm to http://gardening.wsu.edu/library/lawn003/lawn003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206152227/http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs300/liver2.htm to http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs300/liver2.htm
*Added  tag to http://149.152.32.5/Plant_Biology/moss.html
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) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As part of a 300 level genetics class at Reed College I have written an article on the genetics of moss. I am hoping to add this as a new section to the moss main page. The article references scientific primary literature and is graded for accuracy and citations by the professor. Meierha (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020 

message: Meierha (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "London" didn't install anything, London is a city, the "City Trees" were installed by the company Evergen as promotional deal with the Leytonstone Council. The page uses a paid advertising article as a source instead of any official statement from Leytonstone Council or Evergen themselves. Not to mention the fact it's horrendously out of date, We don't have 3 City Trees in Leytonstone anymore for a start.
Typical Wikipedia, just jam packed with arrogant people who want to feel smart because they can use google. Try doing some real research instead of believing the propaganda articles from the press as if they are there to inform people and not just manipulate their opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.41.142 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "City Trees" section is misleading. 

message: hi pls the economic disorder is bad (it says good)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.76.116.24 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023 

message: As someone from Scotland where the word 'moss' is commonly used as per its root meaning, that is a 'marsh or peat bog', I'm wondering if that should be mentioned in this article? I know there is the Moss (disambiguation) page where this point is made  - though in an obscure location - but is it not notable here that the word in English for the plants of the division Bryophyta derives from the word for a marsh or peat bog and that this is, to this day, still in use in parts of the UK (not just Scotland)? Jp2207 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of 'Moss'