Talk:Botany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Microbial relevancy

Not relevant? It’s a link to an article pertaining to botany. I removed "Still, the microbes are usually covered, somewhat superficially, in most introductory Botany courses." This would require to cite the country where this is still true. -ant

Still true in the United States. Although many courses do limit themselves to higher plants, many still cover all of the groups traditionally studied by "biotanists" - Marshman 23:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of topics in biology

Personally, I do not care whether there is such a list on each of the biology topic pages. I'm not going to get sucked into edit war over something that is not my addition. But I will register here my protest over User:Maveric149 once again poor performance in handling this issue. - Marshman 17:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The botany article has undergone quite a few changes recently, what do people think? Does it follow the NPOV etiquette? I can't tell because I've got degree in Plant Sciences so I'm a bit biased. How can it be made better? Bornslippy 15:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plant-Pictures

Hi I am a german. I own a lot pictures (GFPL) of plants, all names in the latin scheme (the names have been verified by two biologie-professors of my university). Here you can find the galeries: A-M, N-Z. All photos are in wikicommons. I hope you can make good use of them! lumbar

Very nice. Danke sehr - Marshman 05:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The picture of Pinguicula is particularly poor. Can someone with the "know-how" change it for a better picture of a random plant species?

I read this quote on the page with regard to Barbara McClintock

Although she was not a classical 'botanist'

I find it hard to agree with this statement. What is a classical botanist? McClintock worked with plants to understand cytogenetics and epigenetics. She is definitely a botanist, even a 'classical' botanist. This page should be helping people understand that the term botanist is quite broad. This sentence seems to imply that botanist only do taxonomy of plants. I think it should be changed. David D. 17:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think what you say proves the statement is essentially correct. A "classical botanist" is one steeped in taxonomy. It not at all implies that "botanist only do taxonomy of plants" since it clearly states a "classical botanist". As time passes, what is classical might change, but there is presently nothing wrong with the statement. I think you are misinterpreting "classical" to mean something like "real"—not the case. Think of "classical" as meaning "ancient". - Marshman 04:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marshman, I suppose I am wondering if classical has any meaning. Was Hooke classical? He used a microscope in the same way as McClintock. Was Mendel classical? He used genetics in the same way as McClintock. Personally, I think she was a classical botanist. I prefer to see it in the terms of botantists being leaders in the biological sciences rather than botanists breaking with the traditions of classical botany. Does that make sense? David D. 15:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it has a meaning, and that is the meaning intended by the statement. I'd have not thought of putting it that way myself and do not even know if it fits in her case; but you are dissecting a term that does convey an admittedly vague concept of what botanists mostly did in the "classical period". One could similarly say, she was a "modern botanist", and no one would argue that that simply is not true because Hooke (decidely not "modern") also used a microscope! - Change the statement to something more descriptive of the field as she practiced it if you like - Marshman 18:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

O.K. I went in and changed it quite a bit. I hope it is appropriate. Feel free to edit it into shape. David D. 23:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that got the details in there and a vast improvement - Marshman 23:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Help requested for Cotton plant

Can anyone help out with a classification issue at Talk:Cotton plant? RK 17:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Expert opinion and specialistic reference needed at Talk:Vegetable

Hi there, can somebody shed some light on the current dispute at Talk:Vegetable? In a nutshell, are all fruits vegetables? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Poison Ivy

I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's a legitimate reason for it to be there, but is it really appropriate to have a link to the comic book character Poison Ivy (Pamela Isley) under "further reading"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AChem (talk • contribs) dylan finch

I was going to remove it but i don't even see it? Where? David D. (Talk) 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed it was under See also, I was looking in the wrong place. From the history it was undetected vandalism, thanks for pointing it out. David D. (Talk) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely spotted. I also didn't notice it for a long time. I'll keep an eye out for similar on related articles. Harristweed 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Botanicals

Botanical redirects here. While the term is used adjectively to describe things related to this research, I was wondering if something could be included on the noun use of 'botanical'. My best guess from what I've heard, is products made from plants, possibly done for health/pharmaceutical purposes, but not sure. Tyciol 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbology

There is no link (or article) on Arbology.--Whytecypress 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Arboriculture? KP Botany 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Arboriculture is the branch of agriculture dealing with cultivation of trees whereas Arbology is the study of trees. WOuld you or anyone else like to collaborate with me to create this article?--Whytecypress 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What's with 1945?

Seems surpassing odd to this reader that all Botany is divided into two parts, before and after 1945. And then there is no explanation of the dividing point.--jb 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Weeds

The statement "...weeds, which are plants that are deemed by people to be growing in the wrong place..." is ridiculous in an article about botany. If that's all there were to it, weed ecology would not exist, and we'd be studying "weed psychology" and "weed sociology". The fact remains that there are important biological factors that make weeds weedy. Since there is at least one editor who prefers to revert an unreferenced edit by a botanist to a previous, equally unreferenced statement, I'll be assembling my references to add some real science both to the paragraph in this article and to weed, but because I have a day job, it won't happen right away.--Curtis Clark 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's rather poorly written and sparse--the weeds are just part of it. It would be nice, Curtis, if you upgraded this on weeds and the weed article, though. I love it when I learn something new on Wikipedia that contradicts what was studied in school like, "r-selected does not say anything about weeds" after always having weeds as an example of r-selected plants. KP Botany 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the original statement "... weeds, which are plants that are deemed by people to be growing in the wrong place" is about a definition of weeds. One definition is by the quality of the plant, or its appearance. The one I use most (not necessarily the best) is a plant out of place. For example a rose bush is a weed in a wheat field, and wheat a weed in a rose bed. There are many more definitions. Abee60 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear what other Botanists think but as one who studied the subject the definition that a weed is "a plant growing in the wrong place" is one that I was introduced to at age 14 and have found robust throughout my time studying plants. Perhaps it has been superceded bettered/improved-on, these days but it expressed the impact we have on our planet as well as to sum up the potential conflict (or 'struggle for survivial' as Darwin would perhaps have said) between plants and other species all competing for scarce resources, at the time when it was beginning to be realised how the study of ecology could play an important role in helping us humans understand all species have a place and a value in the ecosystem. So in 4 words....it gets my vote! Tmol42 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't actually work, and studying weed ecology will show you why. For example, if I buy a new house and want to expand the garage, but there's a rose bush growing where I need to expand, and I want to save the rose bush, but it's "growing in the wrong place," this doesn't make the rose bush a weed. A plant that fell of the arborist's truck and set root, but is an exotic male with no female in the vicinity and an inability to propogate vegetatively may very well be growing in the wrong place, but it's not necessarily a weed. Weeds, by definition, are undesirable, but there is more to being a weed than being in the wrong place. They have to have biological factors such as life histories and compatabilities to their new locations that make their spread in place of native vegetation problematic for native vegetation also. KP Botany 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you say and although I am was not a ready convert to you arguements I sought by looking through several ecology and related references, a descripton of a weed along the lines you suggest but alas I cannot locate one. It seems dictionaries (Websters Oxford etc) seem to take a similar line about plants in the wrong place. Perhaps you can help out and refer me to one. Meantime I have found further references elsewhere in the Wikibooks glossary relating to the Ecology/ Invasive species[1] which does include some references which you may wish to comment on Tmol42 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Botanical history

Newly created, this article should probably be merged into botany. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The article needs work, major work, but it started on the right track, and is a major area of academic study. I'd like to see the article worked on and gotten up to snuff. Title problaby needs changed in addition. But it's a brilliant idea for an important article. KP Botany 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Botanists Section

I added a notable botanists section like the one on the zoology page. I started it off with two early greats: Thomas Henry Huxley and Joseph Dalton Hooker. AJseagull1 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Mass Edit

I have just re edited the mass edit recently undertaken by User:Archanamiya, not a previous recent editor and appears to be a flyby edit. My expectation would be that such significant changes should be accompanied by a full edit summary and in cases where the edit impacts on the layout and content of the lead section and parts of an established article it should be discussed on the Talk page first. Doing edits across all sections in one go also makes it difficult for editors to review. I do have some knowledge of the subject but have not been a regular editor so I am drawing to the attention of those who more regularly work on this page. For the record so others can review my work I have reverted changes to part of the lead section, part of 'scope and importance' and have reverted deletion of recently added section on Notable Botanists. I assumed these have already achieved consensus status. There were some other reversions which I have left as they appear not to upset balance. Tmol42 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 in June 2008. Tobby72 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

tung —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.13 (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Redefinition of botany

This edit is POV: "old-fashioned" and "no longer appropriate" are used somewhat pejoratively, and the reality is that, in most universities where there are still botany departments, they include mycologists and phycologists. Even the reference does not express a redefinition of botany; the new name of the Code is more precise, not a redefinition. Consequently, I have reverted the edit.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. Thank you also for the helpful correction regarding phycology. There was no intention of hurting feelings of my many botanist friends. The huge decline in university botany departments is something I deplore. Change to this part is, however, needed. Please help me find phrasing which is more felicitous.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand why a change is necessary. Is there a value to reducing the scope of botany? Will phycology and mycology gain by being omitted from general botany texts? Does it hurt anything to say that botany is the study of algae, fungi, and plants? At my university, the English and Foreign Languages department includes both literature and linguistics. Does one need to be cut loose, and the department restricted to the other? I see a point to changing the common view of "plant" (although it's hard to imagine how a layperson would conceptualize that Phyllospadix and Ulva are plants while Eisenia and Corallina aren't), but "botany" is not a taxon name, and I think it suffices for Wikipedia to wait until the general meaning changes, rather than trying to push the process.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The general meaning of botany has never changed, and I'm not trying to change it. At the start of the article, botany is correctly defined as the study of plant life. There was a time when algae and fungi were regarded as plants and, at that time, it was reasonable for them to be included within botany. For several decades nobody has seriously believed these organisms are plants. The scope of botany is not being reduced, just maintained as it always was. Botany in a sense including algae and fungi really is out-of-date and no longer appropriate, not in any pejorative sense, merely as a description of reality. Continued use of botany in that old sense is enormously damaging to mycology in general and fungal conservation in particular. The national action plans and reports submitted this year to the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity are a good example. All 16 documents mention plants, but five do not mention fungi at all, and eight only mention fungi briefly as an obscure corner of the plant kingdom [similar evidence could doubtless be found for algal conservation]. Sustainable conservation is only possible if fungi, the recyclers, are properly taken into account. From that point of view, a message which confuses fungi with plants is disastrous. The answer to your question, "does it hurt anything to say that botany is the study of algae, fungi, and plants?" is, "yes, potentially all of us, because sustainable conservation is seriously impaired". You can find mycologists working in botany departments. That doesn't make them botanists. You can also find French people working in Britain. That doesn't make them British. Should scientists passively accept an old definition of the science, simply because administrators who organize university departments are not up-to-date with modern ideas?Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I better understand where you are coming from. I don't think redefining botany is going to save fungi. If anything, you should be looking to those who study plants as allies rather than enemies. Certainly when it comes to conservation, plants, and even arthropods (another group that is biologically important), take the same back seat to vertebrates. Would things be better if you were kicked out of botany departments, and expected to make your own code of nomenclature? Maybe your own situation with respect to the botanists you know might be improved, but my experience would argue against it.

I am currently in administration, but I taught in a Biological Sciences department for 25 years. When I began, mycology was effectively synonymous with plant pathology. One professor had some expertise in saprophytic fungi, and in parasites of non-economically important plants, and there were two mycology courses ("lower" fungi and "higher" fungi). Over time, plant pathologists left and were not replaced, the aforementioned mycologist retired, and I, who, although trained in flowering plant systematics, taught fungi and algae along with plants in the basic botany course, moved into administration. The study of plants didn't fare any better; now there is a functional plant anatomist who also teaches plant systematics, and a plant physiologist (I use plant in the narrow sense for both of these). The "new look" for biology departments is levels of organization, and the only place all majors get either plants, algae, or fungi at a systematic level is in an intro biodiversity course.

Changing the definition of "botany" is unlikely to fix this. Botany is "obsolete", mycology is just another deprecated "ology", and biomedicine and agriculture reign supreme. Still and all, if you can get a consensus among other editors to change the definition, I won't oppose it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Curtis Clark, your story is beautiful and at the same time useless for the purposes of this article. To me and to countless scholars botany will always be about anything that isn't animal or mineral. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It was not intended to be useful for the purposes of this article; either botany has been redefined or it has not, and I contend that it has not. Its purpose was to convince Middgeaugh-Botteaugh that his quest to change the definition (which would of course have to be accepted by reliable sources for it to be changed in Wikipedia) won't likely result in the outcome he desires.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your helpful comments. I have now made a new attempt to edit the botany page. I have tried to take into account the various views which have resulted in a more gentle text which is surely an improvement on my first effort. Please note that I have listed the various other groups of organisms in alphabetical order, as that is neutral: it contains no comment about relative importance. For interest, I checked the definition of botany in the Oxford English Dictionary and it says quite clearly that it relates to the study of plants. The changes which I am proposing conserve that definition in the light of (not so new) scientific knowledge. You are surely right that, on their own, the edits I have made will not result in a change in the value society puts on the study of algae, fungi and plants, but at least, through Wikipedia, society will have been accurately informed.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unknown flowering plant

• 
  Garden plant. Details unknown. Common in South India

A species of Hibiscus, but I don't know which one. Nadiatalent (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Comparatively smaller than ordinary Hibiscus.
• 
  Flower gone. See the young fruit now.
• 
  Another species nearby.

Abelmoschus moschatus, sometimes known as annual hibiscus. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
  South Indian
• 
  South Indian. (Horizontal is the correct posture)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbago

Plumbago auriculata. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
  South Indian

Looks like some species of Thunbergia. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Tree - Brought to Kerala from Chhattisgarh State
• 
  Tree - Brought to Kerala from Chhattisgarh State

Bauhinia purpurea

Thank you for identification.

• 

That's Brugmansia. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference format change

I asked for input at the help desk. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Harvard_references. I want to change the reference format to Template:Sfn (short footnotes). I think this would be better for this article, especially since it uses/will use so many books. 512bits (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noting βοτανικός botanical. I don't want to lose this info, but right now I think it would make the etymology part too wordy, with refs that include βοτανικός. 512bits (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Botany article structure and concerns

I've started making notes from two books, one for serious hobbyists/gardeners, one a university first year botany book. I think this will result in a good mix of academic info without making it unreadable for the general reader, ie, the right level for a quality encyclopedic article. I plan to add a section called "Plant biology" and one called "Plant systemics", making the current "Subdiciplines of botany" section a subsection of the latter. I feel the current article is lacking in those two areas. I feel other areas are okay. One concern I've noticed with the preexisting info is that a lot of it is not referenced. I've added some refs, but it needs more AND many of those paragraphs seem copied from other sources and need rewritten. Sometimes I can't tell if someone copied these paragraphs or if other websites copied from wikipedia. Any input and help appreciated. 512bits (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sadly. As with most high-level (and usually high importance) articles, referencing and consolidating the information that should be or should not be in the article is a big problem. It's also usually easy to determine if a verbatim match for text is a copyright violation, but it depends on a lot of things.

However, I'm not really sure what you mean. "Plant systematics" deals more with taxonomy and phylogenetics. Placing the Subdisciplines section under it would be wrong. "Plant biology" itself is simply another term for Botany, and a subsection on it would be inaccurate. That said, I guess it's best if you first show the text of the sections you want to add or at least say what they will be about. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. WP:BEBOLD :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, maybe they're not the best section titles, but I was thinking in the first one an overview of things like cells, tissues, roots, stems, growth, and reproduction and in the second one an overview of sytems and divisions. My gut view here is that two significant sections are lacking/missing.512bits (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also the Outline of botany page, which, frankly, isn't very good. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the plagiarism, if you think information in the article is word-by-word the same as that found in a reliable source, the most likely situation is that this article has plagiarized the source. In such situations, all you need to do is paraphrase the source and cite it. Regarding the article structure, sadly I am not an expert on these kind of articles, so I suggest you take the advice of Obsidian. If you decide to follow the WP:BEBOLD advice, also please read the WP:BRD process. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunno 512bits, the way you describe it the sections you are planning sound like they belong more in the article on Plant, which actually already has them (some sections are still awfully referenced though).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Plant and Botany would have a lot of overlap. Plant has way more detail than I'm thinking of for here. 512bits (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If we don't take this route, what route should we take to improve it to be the best it can be?512bits (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A comparison with zoology might be useful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do.512bits (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The best way you can improve this article is to cite the material in it. I notice that several large chunks of text are without proper references, which constitutes as WP:OR. If you can improve that, the article would be much better.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

I've been doing that.512bits (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would echo Curtis Clark's comment about looking at the Zoology article. It seems to me that parallelling it, this article should be about botany as a subject or discipline of study, not about the details of its content, which belong elsewhere, starting at Plant and working down. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Botany vs Zoology

Overall the current botany article is better. Both start with a history section and have a subdisciplines/branches section. Botany has (and zoology doesn't have) an extensive bibliography, notable persons, and scope and importance of botany. Zoology has (and botany doesn't have) a research section. It's this "research" section that I was sensing was missing. We could merge the current botany "scope and importance" section into a new "research" section; but I lean to leaving it separate. The five sections in Zoology's "research" section are: STRUCTURAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, EVOLUTIONARY, SYSTEMATICS, and ETHOLOGY. The first four definitely apply to plants, but plants don't behave (ethology) in the way animals behave. I think the ethology section could be replaced with an "ecology" section (populations/ecosystems/biomes) in the botany article. Thoughts? 512bits (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seems sensible. The point of comparing with the Zoology article was to avoid talking about plants as that article does about animals, but rather talk about the discipline/subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to go now

I'm done with the draft of the research section now. Everyone please feel free to look it over and make it better. One thing I am kinda stumped on is what to do with the structural and evolutionary sections. There seems to be some overlap and I don't know what to do about it. I want to make the article as good as we can make it but don't know where to go from here. All help is welcome and appreciated. 512bits (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Structure" needs to explain the classical distinction between plant anatomy, the study of cells and tissues (this is called histology in zoology) and plant morphology, the study of organs and general form (this is called anatomy in zoology). The study of cell ultrastructure was traditionally done by plant anatomists, but such people now call themselves plant cell biologists, and the distinction between structure and function is (in my opinion appropriately) blurred more than in the past.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to edit. What next? 512bits (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to establish a "criteria" for including people in the "Notable botanists" lists (or, you could delete the list altogether). I enjoy lists, so I'd keep it; but you'll need to come up with something so that the list remains limited to a sizeable number of people (and, the "right" kind of notable people, not just any random botanist). Check the Bicycle Kick article's listing of notable bicycle kick takers (that's an example of a relatively good list; on the same article you can see a bad list with the "notable games"). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Shortly after I started on this someone purged the list. I like it where it's at now as far as who's included. I saw at WP:PLANTS that the level above class b, which this is, is "GA". Is this article ready for that? How does one go about getting classified as "GA"?512bits (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the list seems to include the right individuals, but you really need to come up with a criteria of inclusion. Considering no one is going to dispute it (at least for the time being), you can arbitrarily decide specific things for the inclusion of individuals (for instance, maybe he should be considered the "father" of something, or his contribution to the field is considered extremely valuable according to a reliable source).

Regarding your GA question; this article is extremely close to qualifying for GA. At least from my view, the only parts that need improvement are the "Notables" list (which needs the criteria) and the introduction. I'll have more time to help with the introduction later on this week; however, I don't know who could qualify as a notable botanist (you know more about it).

The GA process generally takes a while to be accepted and completed; the more work you do now to polish the article, the easier the GA process shall be for both you and the reviewer. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For a statement about criteria for inclusion, how about something like "major contribution to the ways in which botany has since been studied". By that criterion Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, John Ray, and Augustus Quirinus Rivinus are pre-linnaeans who should definitely be included. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Added criterion and the botanists. I'll look around for ideas on the introduction.512bits (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Marshal said the intro needs work and I looked at other good articles and noticed they had more info in the intro, covered the major points more, so I'll give that a try.512bits (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Botany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be starting my review of the article in the next couple of days and comments from other people will be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I have read through the article carefully. In general the quality of the prose is excellent. I did a little copyediting as I went where I came across a trivial fault. I have listed below a few concerns I had. I will later look at the article from the point of view of the other GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lead

1. 1500s-1700 is awkward fixed
2. "systematices" - I don't think this is right, systematics is a plural noun already.fixed typo

• Early modern botany

Further information: Taxonomy § History of taxonomy

1. Can you make this link more visually appealing? fixed

• Modern botany

1. "major questions such as which families represent the earliest branches in the genealogy of angiosperms are now understood." This sentence is awkward. fixed

• Scope and importance of botany

1. "The study of plants is vital because they are a fundamental part of life on Earth, which generates the oxygen, food, fibres, fuel and medicine that allow humans and other life forms to exist." Can you clarify this? I don't understand. to me it's obvious that oxygen and food are vital.

• • I agree that oxygen and food are essential but you need to distinguish between what is vital and what is merely useful. As it stands, the sentence implies that "...(plants) generate the fuel and medicines that allow other life forms to exist." ah, got it, cut the "useful" part

1. "Plants are crucial to the future of human society as they provide food, oxygen, beauty, medicine, habitat for animals, products for people, and create and preserve soil." This sentence needs arranging into a more grammatical sentence with a more logical sequence. fixed

• Human nutrition

1. The last sentence is too convoluted, can you divide it into two? fixed

• Environmental changes

1. "Analyzing pollen from by plants thousands or millions of years ago allows reconstruct of past climates and predicting future ones; which is essential to climate change research." Can you correct this sentence and expand it to provide clarification? Where is this pollen found? fixed

• Evolution

1. "Spermatophytes are plants that produce seeds. Gymnosperms produce unenclosed seeds" Need to explain the relationship of Gymnosperms with Spermatophores fixed, well I tried

• • I have done a bit of clarifying.
• Physiology

1. "Plant physiology is the energy the plant brings in acting upon materials brought into the plant via various mechanisms." Could you provide a better definition of plant physiology? fixed
2. "Cell types are unique and their nucleus stores most of the DNA." Could this be moved to a better location. It seems wrong here, and shouldn't it be "nuclei"? made it nuclei, but where to move to?

• • I have moved it.
• Structure

1. "Plants with horizontal-spreading roots, such as willows, produce shoots" This is a curious statement, don't plants with vertical roots produce shoots? Please clarify. fixed

Tried to address all the above. 512bits (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good edits, thanks for helping, took a stab at the vital thing. 512bits (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Nearly there! I have done a little copyediting and noticed that in the "Evolution" section there is an incomplete sentence which needs correction: "In this system Eukaryota (nuclei-bearing eukaryotes)."  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The section "Research" seems to be about the topics in the subsections rather than research into these topics. I suggest removing this heading and elevating the present subsection headings to a higher level.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The method of referencing is new to me but seems to be efficiently and comprehensively done.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is well-referenced with appropriate inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problem here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is largely stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are suitably licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are suitable for the subject and are appropriately captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am satisfied that the article now meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1a - you didn't make comments so I don't know what the issues are

1b - done

512bits (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the example given in 1a (the sentence "In this system Eukaryota (nuclei-bearing eukaryotes)." under #Evolution) added after 512bits' comment, is that paragraph up until the mention of cyanobacteria even worth having in the section? The article does not talk much about Archaea and, after reading those few sentences, I do not see how Thomas Cavalier-Smith rejecting the classification relates to evolution in regards to botany. Perhaps it is straying from the article's focus a bit? Maybe I'm missing something, but if I am it still brings up the point that those sentences do not lead anywhere or appear to relate to the mentioning of cyanobacteria.

I have removed the sentence because it disrupted the focus of Archaea vs. Bacteria by mentioning Eukaryota, and I could not work it into the paragraph without it feeling like a random addition. But, once again, I am sort of jumping in here. – Jonadin (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WOW! I just came back to work on this more and WOW. I am so happy! Thanks for the help everyone; and the excellent review.512bits (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fathers of botany

Looks to me like we have a small error in the way this article treats that title. First, we say that Theophrastus "has been frequently referred to as the ”father of botany”", incorrectly diminishing him. He is universally accepted by reliable sources as the Father of Botany. Second, for the "German fathers of botany"; the phrase/title in our article "the three founding fathers of botany", is unsupported by the references cited. Any titles they are given by reliable sources are usually more descriptions than tiles, and are almost always modified by the word "German", which greatly reduces their proportional importance. Any objection to me reworking those slightly? --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not from me; I think your suggested corrections are essential. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Make this article better

What should be done next to make this article even better. It is currently rated "good".512bits (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It really isn't bad. I'd say that it is a bit confused about what organisms botany covers. Traditionally it included algae, fungi, and viruses, but much of the page is only about land plants. I'm not even sure what sources to look for, but a definite decision needs to be made about which if any algae to discuss (see Plant). The ecology section isn't great. I'm not sure what else to suggest, but having Autotroph as the main article for physiology of botanical organisms seems a bit perfunctory. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed Autotroph to Plant physiology. I'll look at the ecology section next and then move to scope. When that's done is there a formal review process for improvement we can utilize? Thank you for helping. 512bits (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that, and wasn't able to find anything. It looks as if Wikipedia:Good article reassessment might have to be used as a first step, to check whether substantial changes are all good. I wonder if it is expected that you'd try to nominate it as a featured article, or if there is some other process. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern, uptodate botany texts don't include algae, fungi, and bacteria, and I will update the article to that effect in a moment. I was looking for a "get ready for featured" type of review. Is there such a thing available? 512bits (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No "get ready for featured" review exists. Peer reviews are extremely helpful for articles trying to get to GA status (which this article already has), but lessen their effectiveness for the Featured Article (FA) process (which is more rigorous and time-consuming for reviewers and editors). This article is certainly ready for a FA review, but its editors must be equally ready to continue improving it as the reviewers point out flaws. Send a message to my talk space if you think you'll have the time to participate in the FA review (it takes several weeks to complete).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just did some improvements and I think we may be ready for the process. Perhaps take a shot at peer review anyway or just submit it to the featured process? 512bits (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As a botany graduate who has spent a lifetime working in a University Botany department, I think this article reads like a first draft, is a bit of curate's egg. There is a lot that needs to be improved, but there are many redeeming features, and I hope you will forgive me for making some critical comments. They are intended to be constructive, so please don't feel bruised by them. I would encourage you to keep working on the weaker material for a while to bring it up to a professional standard. The overall structure seems fine, but in some places the language used appears naïve, as though written by a student who thinks they know what Botany is about but have no real background or experience in it. Sometimes the language is imprecise - what are plant population groups, for example? What is meant by chromosome counting - that is almost the botanical equivalent of accusing a banker of being preoccupied with cash-counting. So a good deal of copy editing still needs to be done bring the article up to the next level. The lead could be strengthened by a more accurate and current view of what botany and plant science are about, with more comprehensive linkage to what is already in Wikipedia. Botany today is very diverse - it includes, for example, paleobotany, plant evolution, Speciation, plant diversity, plant ecology, plant anatomy, plant cell biology (which includes chromosome counting and much else), cell signaling, plant biochemistry]], plant physiology, plant taxonomy, plant systematics, molecular genetics, genomics, proteomics, epigenetics, evolutionary developmental biology and systems biology, plant tissue culture and biotechnology. Note that the applied topics - Horticulture, Forestry, Agronomy etc. are not part of the core of Botany, but usually separated into separate University departments. Accordingly, the key scientists featured should be core botanists, and therefore, for all his merits, Norman Borlaug should not be included. There is no mention of many other botanists who were pivotal to the development of the subject in the last 200 years, e.g. Joseph Dalton Hooker, William Hooker, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Arthur Cronquist, Joseph Banks, Robert Brown, Arthur Tansley, and many of those plant explorers whose names are immortalized in the generic or specific names of plants, such as Joseph Banks, Tradescant, Bougainville, Poinsett, George Forrest, etc. There should be a link also to List of Botanists.

I suggest we take a week or so to review what is there and improve the weaker sections before submitting it for peer review. I am willing to do my part in this work, but it cannot be achieved overnight. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I think you and 512bits can probably do a better job at the FAC review as well, so please stay on board the process. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do!. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Scientific disciplines

The article states "Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines including structure, growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, chemical properties, and evolutionary relationships among taxonomic groups." The itemized entities are topics, but not disciplines, and the discrepancy makes the article sound naff. How do you wish to deal with this? I suggest we give the disciplines their proper names. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the sentence is probably redundant, since the disciplines are itemized in the next paragraph. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable botanists

Albert Blakeslee?? who he! OK, so the mud-wrestling begins. Clearly there could be endless competition for a place on the list for your favourite botanist. A short session of this might be quite entertaining and instructive, but I think in the end we need to define how big this list should be and what it is really for. It occurs to me that the average reader will see this as just a list of names, none of them meaning anything. So I suggest that the names need to be connected with a brief statement of their contribution to the subject. If that in its turn is to be prevented from degenerating into an endless list of contributions then we should try to limit it to 5 or 6 real milestones, pivotal moments in the development of the subject. One such might be the description of the Rhynie chert plants by Kidston and Lang. Another might be the first successful use by Don Grierson and his colleagues of molecular technology to construct a transgenic tomato containing an antisense pectinmethylesterase gene, marking the first successful experimental use of genetic engineering in plants. Another 20th century contributor of note was the late Paul Jarvis, FRS see http://bsbi.org.uk/PGJarvis.pdf whose work enabled measurement of water vapour and CO₂ fluxes from vegetation canopies. OK, just examples, but examples connected with identifiable step changes in understanding of the subject. I think that is what we need to do. Can we have some more suggestions please? Plantsurfer (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest just to remove the section. For while we could come up with a guideline for notable botanists, this is bound to be controversial in bot the short and long-term. The simplest thing to do is to place the most remarkable individuals (who made a significant impact on the field) in the history section.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Botanical history

There seem to me to be two major omissions: first there is no mention of the origins of the major staple food cereals - or of the fact that their modern form is the result of selection from among wild ancestors. Second, the article majors on the pre-industrial history of botany, and almost completely omits the late 19th and early 20th century development of the subject, returning in the closing years with Arabidopsis and molecular genetics. That is an important omission and needs to be put right. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I will help work on this.512bits (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is probably best if we are not tripping over each other, and I need a break, so I will back off for a day or so to see how it goes. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction needs a major re-write, particularly the last paragraph (which looks like a smurf convention). I volunteer to do that task, but first need for the other sections to be completed.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it was better two day ago. The intro should be a summary and that list of names isn't. Many of the other edits of the last two days are valid though and I'll help work through them. 512bits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back. The intro should be written after the body is in stable solid form anyway.512bits (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, it was weak before, but I accept the criticism. It has now become too much of a list. It would be helpful if other interested people could indicate where the other weak areas in the article now are. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, plants have the more restricted definition of embryophytes ?

Under Botany#Scope and importance of botany, it says

"Now, plants have the more restricted definition of embryophytes ("land plants"), multicellular eukaryotic organisms that obtain their energy from sunlight by photosynthesis, and have life cycles with alternating haploid and diploid phases in which the sexual, haploid phase or gametophyte nurtures the developing embryo sporophyte within its tissues for at least part of its life."

I remember Plantæ as including the green algae, as the plant article is about.—Kelvinsong (talk)

See e.g. Plant Current definitions of Plantae. If we are talking of plants sensu stricto as land plants, their ancestors are charophytes, which are a separate division from chlorophytes. Re the evolutionary history, the great oxygenation event enabled the rise of Plantae, but was caused by cyanobacteria - Plantae were not responsible for it. Plants have caused or contributed to subsequent changes in oxygen concentration, for example during the Carboniferous period when the concentration reached about 30%. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Charophyta still includes a small group of green algae. Still, I don't think it's a good idea to go against the definition used in the core Plant article. Consider rewording to something like

"Now, plants have the stricter definition of organisms descended from a photosynthetic green alga, and modern botany focuses on one particular clade (evolutionary branch? Readers may not know what a clade is.) of plant—the embryophytes, commonly referred to as the "land plants". ?

Also I think the part on alternation of generations in the definition should be removed or moved. 1 it is not unique to land plants, some algae also have it; 2 Very few readers are likely to understand (or even have heard of) the concept—it is not even mentioned in an honors high school biology course where I live. 3 it's likely to confuse even readers who know what Alternation of generations is—Angiosperms, etc. are sporophytes that shelter the gametophytes, not the other way around—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kelvinsong you are right that seed plant sporophytes shelter the gametophytes, but the fact is that their gametophytes nurture the next generation of sporophyte - i.e. the embryo, so that in seed plants there are three generations living together simultaneously. However, in their ancestors, liverworts let's say for example, gametophyte produces eggs in the archegonium and they are fertilized there to form a diploid zygote. The zygote develops into the sporophyte within the gametophyte's archegonium and is nurtured by gametophyte. That is the ancestral condition of all embryophytes. That is why they are called embryophytes. The situation in seed plants is a more complex and derived condition. What I said in the article is the right way round. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Charophyte may informally be described as green algae, but they are not synonymous with the other group of green algae Chlorophyta. The two are now regarded as separate Divisions (equivalent to phyla). Charophytes contain the closest ancestors of embryophytes, and the closest of these are the Coleochaetales. These are regarded as closest to embryophytes because, among a raft of biochemical parallels, they are the first group to show signs of nurturing the earliest stages of multicellular development of their zygotes. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article explains it quite well. http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/7/999.abstract Plantsurfer (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added that ref to the end of "The Charophyte class Charophyceae and the land plant sub-kingdom Embryophyta together form the monophyletic group or clade Streptophytina.[66]" in the Evolution section. It could well be used elsewhere also and that may not even be the best place for it. 512bits (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the following text to the article:

Now, plants have the stricter definition of organisms descended from a photosynthetic green alga, and modern botany focuses on one particular evolutionary branch of plant—the embryophytes, commonly referred to as the "land plants", which include seed plants (gymnosperms, the most well known being the pine trees, and flowering plants), ferns, and mosses. All embryophytes are multicellular eukaryotic organisms descended from an ancestor that obtained its energy from sunlight by photosynthesis, and have life cycles with alternating haploid and diploid phases. In embryophytes, the sexual haploid phase, or gametophyte, nurtures the developing embryo sporophyte within its tissues for at least part of its life, even in the seed plants, where the gametophyte itself is nurtured by another sporophyte.

—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Who says that that this is the definition of plants or that modern botany focusses on embryophytes as opposed to, say, Viridiplantae? This seems to me to be unsourced and hence WP:OR. As one counter-example, the website of the Department of Plant Sciences of Cambridge University says "Plants are utterly fundamental to life on earth. From single-celled algae to the planet's largest living organism..." (see here). As another counter-example, the Department of Botany at the Smithsonian lists algae as one of its research areas here. A quick search for contents of "botany" and "plant science(s)" degrees in universities around the world suggests to me that algae are usually included. (One issue is that "botany" seems to be an old-fashioned term now, being replaced by "plant science" in the titles of most degrees and departments.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed in quite a balanced way in Embryophyte. Inevitably, research areas will overlap. Whether a University dept. chooses to teach a group or not is probably not relevant to the taxonomy. My Plant Science department taught fungi. so what?? Plantsurfer (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right about Botany departments. Are there any left? Most plant scientists now flinch if you call them botanists. In my institution they would also flinch if you suggested they might be interested in agronomy or ecology. But the whole (multi)discipline is riddled with politics, contradictions and differences of opinion. Many plant scientists today work in large interdisciplinary groups with mathematicians, engineers, computational scientists, materials scientists etc. Pinning down what a botanist is in the modern world is not an easy matter. Worryingly (if you are a botanist) the majority of biologists seem to think that the boundaries between the traditional biological disciplines are increasingly irrelevant, made so by the unifying principles of molecular biology, which, they argue apply to all organisms. Plant/algae-orientated courses should merge into other molecular biology courses, for example. How would you defend botany against that argument? Plantsurfer (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion at Embryophyte#Phylogeny and classification is nicely balanced – but then as I wrote most of this section, I would say that. :-) My concern is that Botany#Scope and importance isn't balanced in the same way. There are competing definitions of "plant" and hence "botany"/"plant science" and these should be reflected in the article. Further, as you rightly note, the traditional biological disciplines are treated as increasingly irrelevant, something which is not made clear in the article.

I think I'm right in saying that there are now no degrees with the word "botany" in their title in the UK. Actually if you look at the content of biology degrees, whole organisms of any kind seem to be regarded as, at best, specialist final year topics. One consequence is that it's extremely difficult to find anyone in universities (at least in the UK) who can identify organisms or participate in taxonomic discussions once these move beyond molecular phylogeny. The museums still have such people, but for how much longer? "Serious amateurs" are now often the best people to ask if you want an organism identified. (End of grumpy old man rant!) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whole organism botany has been the domain of botanic gardens for some time. I think you need to get stuck into this article.
It appears to be rooted in some 19th century sepia-toned fantasy and 20th century approaches and milestones in the subject are poorly represented. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"plant population groups"

What is meant by the phrase "plant population groups" in the lede? This is not only taxonomically vague but fails to specify what aspect is the focus of study - chemistry?? genetics?? ecology?? What information is this trying to convey? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably a group of same species of plant, such as California poppies in a field, or an orchard of fig trees, etc. See [2] and [3]. 512bits (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So why would that be a focus of botanical research as stated in the lede? It clearly is only one of a myriad of side-issue topics studied by botanists, and not a focus of botanical research generally. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't know. I think that's been in the lede for ages. 512bits (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, then what I suggest then is we change it to population biology which is a term that actually means something to professional botanists, and can be linked, and would be a credible focus of research. Whether it is actually one of THE most important focusses (?foci) of current botanical research I am not sure. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, done. 512bits (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we please add molecular genetics to that list. Most modern botanists are precoccupied either with that or with molecular taxonomy/systematics. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, done.512bits (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental life processes

"Botanical research has long had relevance to the understanding of fundamental biological processes other than just botany." a) botany isn't a life process b) processes such as? - provide some good examples. "Fundamental life processes such as cell division and protein synthesis can be studied using plants . . ." OK, an example, but a very weak one. c) plant cell structure and their processes of metabolism and cell division are both very different from those of animal cells. d) ". . . without the moral issues that come with conducting studies upon animals or humans." sounds like wp:or. Sources? e)Is this implying that plant cells are somehow an ethical model cell? If so I say this is false. Most studies of animal cell cycles, etc. would be carried out ethically using cultured animal cells, (see HeLa, just for example, but please, don't come back to me with reasons not to use this cell line) not plant cells, which are too fundamentally different in their structure and physiology. If you hope to learn about muscle cells using a plant cell model, good luck! Plantsurfer (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

"After the evolution of xylem and phloem during the Silurian and Devonian periods, vascular plants developed along two lines: vascular cryptogams which reproduce by spores and evolved first, and spermatophytes, which reproduce by seed." This is ambiguous and misleading. It suggests that two lineages reached different evolutionary end-points or stages. Actually, there were several lineages of vascular cryptogams which reproduced by spores, and several of htose lineages evolved seeds. For example, the late Devonian and Carboniferous lycopods evolved megaspory and seeds totally independently of the Progymnosperms and seed ferns. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gymnosperm monophyly

After looking into this more, it seems the confusion with this gymnosperm monophyly thing originates from the fossil gymnosperms. Campbell-Reece Biology from 2008-ish states that all surviving gymnosperms are monophyletic, as does the most recent (2011) source on the Gymnosperm page

It says

Although the extant taxa are clearly monophyletic, their relationships to the numerous and diverse groups of fossil gymnosperms remain obscure and incompletely understood.

I think it depends on whether you count fossil groups like Bennettitales as gymnosperms; the textbook says no, the Bennettitales article says yes. As it stands though, the current article text gives the impression that a pine tree somehow evolved into an angiosperm.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is exactly correct. Although it can't be regarded as totally settled, the extant gymnosperms appear to form a clade, according to recent research. However, there are clearly extinct members of the pan-spermatophytes (in the sense of Cantino et al. 2007) which do not belong to any of the extant groups of gymnosperms. Some of these, like Aneurophyton, have traditionally been treated as the paraphyletic group "progymnosperms", but others, like the pteridosperms or seed ferns have traditionally been treated as gymnosperms. Since molecular studies can't be done on these extinct groups, their position in the phylogenetic tree will always be in doubt. (Most sources I've looked at put the Bennittatales firmly in the gymnosperms.)

Perhaps the safest thing to say is that following the evolution of true seeds, seed plants diversified, giving rise to a number of extinct groups as well as the extant gymnosperms and the angiosperms. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that makes a lot of sense.Plantsurfer (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've now re-written that bit along the lines I suggested above. The text still doesn't quite deal with the point that you (Plantsurfer) made above re seed-like structures occurring outside the line leading to spermatophytes. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

what I want to say is something like the following. Any suggestions how to condense it further:

Vascular cryptogams, plants with true xylem and phloem that reproduced by spores that germinated into free-living autotrophic gametophytes, evolved during the Silurian period and diversified into several lineages during the late Silurian and early Devonian. By the end of the Devonian period, several groups, including the lycopods, sphenophylls and progymnosperms, had evolved megaspory independently and their reduced gametophytes developed within the sporangia of the sporophyte, a condition known as endospory. These developments were early experiments in reproduction using seeds, which was most successfully developed in the progymnosperms and their descendents, the seed ferns, the extinct ancestors of modern spermatophytes. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all very tricky to word in a short paragraph, while retaining the nuances of reliable sources. To quote from Taylor et al. (Paleobotany, 2009): "Many regard the origin of the seed habit as the end member of a logical progression that began with homospory, was followed by various forms of heterospory ... and culminated in the structure termed the seed ... however, there is no a priori reason that the seed habit could not have evolved directly from a homosporous system". The original includes references supporting both positions, whereas your last sentence implies a direct line ("early experiments", progymnosperms as the direct ancestors of modern spermatophytes, whereas they may be side branches). An entire chapter (13) in Taylor et al. is devoted to detailed discussion of the evolution of the "seed habit". Breaking down what you wrote (and removing some jargon), here's my version:

• Plants with true xylem and phloem that reproduced by spores germinating into free-living gametophytes evolved during the Silurian period and diversified into several lineages during the late Silurian and early Devonian.
• By the end of the Devonian period, several groups, including the lycopods, sphenophylls and progymnosperms, had independently evolved "megaspory" – their spores were of two distinct sizes, microspores and megaspores. Their reduced gametophytes developed from megaspores retained within the spore-producing organs (megasporangia) of the sporophyte, a condition known as endospory.
• A "true" seed consists of a megasporangium surrounded by one or two sheathing layers (integuments). The young sporophyte develops within the seed, which splits to release it. The earliest known true seeds date from the Middle Devonian. Following the evolution of the seed habit, plants with seeds diversified, giving rise to a number of extinct groups, including seed ferns, as well as the modern gymnosperms and angiosperms.

I think this is as accurate as it can be in the space, and it's all sourceable (e.g. to Taylor et al.) What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I think that looks very good and provides quite enough information for the purpose of this article. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lede

I am proposing the following edit of the lede. Purpose is to improve logical flow and indicate better where botany came from. Comments on a postcard please

Botany, plant science(s), or plant biology (from Ancient Greek βοτάνη botane, "pasture, grass, or fodder" and that from βόσκειν boskein, "to feed or to graze"), is the science of plant life and a discipline of biology. A person engaged in the study of botany is called a botanist.

Botany began in prehistory as herbalism with early human efforts to identify, and later to cultivate, edible, medicinal and poisonous plants, making it one of the oldest branches of science. Nowadays, botanists study about 400,000 species of living organisms. The spice trade was of great economic and political importance during the Middle ages, driving world exploration. Medieval Physic gardens, such as those of University of Oxford Botanic Garden (founded 1632) and Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (founded 1670) collected plants of medical importance, and the efforts to catalogue and describe their collections were the beginnings of plant taxonomy which led to the binomial system of Carl Linnaeus in 1753. In the 19th and 20th centuries, major new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including microscopy, analysis of chromosome number, plant chemistry and live cell imaging. In the last two decades of the 20th century, plant genetic analysis exploited the new disciplines of genomics and proteomics and DNA sequences were used to classify plants more accurately.

Modern Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines including the study of plant structure, growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, chemical properties, evolutionary relationships, systematics, and plant taxonomy. NOTE - these are topics, ok, but not disciplines. Can we please get the wording right and properly link

Traditionally, the science of botany also included the study of fungi, algae but this has become less common. Because Tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus to be discovered, virology was originally studied by botanists.

Key scientists in the history of botany include Theophrastus, Ibn al-Baitar, Carl Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, and Norman Borlaug.

Plantsurfer (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the lede needs work and overall your proposal is better, but I have some suggestions:

• • A lede should be a summary of the body and as such we should work it last, after we feel the article is where we want it
  • As a summary, there should be no footnotes in the lede, they should be in the body where the supporting info lies (the current lede has that problem too)
  • Replace Borlaug with McClintock
  • Cut "A person engaged in the study of botany is called a botanist", it's rather obvious
  • We should end up with 3-4 paragraphs of 4 or so sentences each
  • The history paragraph is good but might be a bit too long, not sure
  • Merge what are currently the last two paragraphs (virus and notables)
  • I've copied the history and modern botany ("b" should be lower case) to the current article.
    • Just my thoughts. 512bits (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

McClintock is good. Any more? It would be good to have representatives of a couple more key areas of the subject. Might I suggestKatherine Esau for Plant Anatomy? Plantsurfer (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 512bits that the lead is the last thing we need to work on. We first need a stable article body.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision of Plant ecology section

==Plant ecology==

Plant ecology describes the ways plants relate to and function in their habitats, the environments in which they complete their life cycles. Plants depend upon certain edaphic (soil) and climatic factors in their environment but may also modify these factors by e.g. decreasing albedo, increasing interception of runoff and stabilization of soils.

Plants compete with other organisms in their ecosystem for resources. They interact with their neighbours at a variety of spatial scales in groups, populations and communities that collectively constitute vegetation. Biomes such as tundra and tropical rainforest, are regions with similar abiotic and biotic factors, climate, and geography with characteristic dominant plants.

Plant ecologists study the composition of local and regional flora, the biodiversity, genetic diversity, fitness and adaptation of plants to their environment and their competition with other species.

Herbivores eat plants, but plants can also defend themselves and some species are parasitic or even carnivorous. Other organisms form mutually beneficial relationships with plants. For example mycorrhizal fungi provide plants with nutrients, ants are recruited by ant plants to provide protection, honey bees and other pollinators pollinate flowers, and dispersal vectors distribute spores and seeds.

===Plants, climate and environmental change===

Plant responses to climate and other environmental changes can inform our understanding of how these changes affect ecosystem function and productivity. For example, plant phenology can be a useful proxy for temperature in historical climatology, and for indicating the biological impact of climate change and global warming. Palynology, the analysis of fossil pollen deposits in sediments from thousands or millions of years ago allows the reconstruction of past climates. Estimates of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since the Palaeozoic have been obtained from stomatal densities and leaf shapes of ancient land plants. Ozone depletion can expose plants to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation-B (UV-B), resulting in lower growth rates. Moreover, plant systematics and taxonomy are essential to understanding habitat destruction and species extinction.

Plantsurfer (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good improvement. I like the fact that it places the climate with greater prominence in the section.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, made a few small changes—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, OK I'll make the change. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Status check

Sorry I haven't been around for a few days. I'm sort of lost trying to sieve through all the above comments. Where are we at with this and what do we still need to do? 512bits (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Improvements have been made, it's getting there certainly, but there is a way to go yet before this is a credible FA. I am going to be blunt: Parts of it, including the lede, still come across as an essay written by someone who is not quite in touch with the topic.

Lede "In the 19th and 20th centuries, major new techniques were developed for studying plants, including microscopy" - Contributions to botanical microscopy began with Hooke's Micrographia 2 centuries before. Developments in 20th century microscopy can be split into 2 broad areas Optical microscopy and electron microscopy each of which made significant contributions in 20th century botany.

Cut it from lede. 512bits (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede paragraph 4: sentence 1 essentially repeats the first sentence in paragraph 2, and is therefore redundant.

I changed that. I hope it's better. 512bits (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

History: I remain disturbed by scope/balance of this history section, its subheadings and other aspects. It is too heavy on mediaeval botany and skips most of 20th century development. The reverse balance would be more appropriate. I could accept the subheader title "Early modern botany" for 20th century botany, but not for 15th century. The first 2 paragraphs could be moved into Early botany, and the modern botany section needs significant amplification and strengthening.

Made some changes. 512bits (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Scope and importance - This starts off "Botanists study...." blah di blah. Haven't we already covered all that? For me this section comes across as surprisingly confused and directionless. The importance of Botany to mankind is that we and the existence of the biosphere generally are underpinned by the solar energy captured by photosynthesizing organisms. We study plants because it is vital to understand how they function in earth environments, what drives their diversity and whether it is necessary for the functioning of the biosphere, because if we should inadvertently destroy them we are all so dead. We need to get some of that importance and excitement across to a readership that mostly view plants as tedious background. So the section should lead with paragraph 2and Human nutrition.

Made some changes. 512bits (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental life processes - see my earlier remarks. The second sentence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I cut this. 512bits (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Environmental changes - the title is wrong. Why would that topic be included here? It needs to justify its inclusion in a summary of botany, and it comes across as weak, naïve.

Plant ecology - OK we need to say something about this, because we all know it is vital to the understanding of plant functioning in their natural habitats, but this text wastes time defining e.g. biomes. We need to lift the section above that basic high school ecology (which is after all the scope of another article) to focus exclusively on what we want to say about Plant Ecology.

Evolution - is good

Plant physiology - is weak. Full of platitudes, lacking real information and substance. This subsection of botany was the stuff of most of 20th century endeavour that needs to be reflected here. Where are plant growth regulators, e.g.? The section needs to identify what are the key issues and developments in modern plant physiology and summarize them. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Plantsurfer. What I would add is that this kind of article is significantly more difficult to write in my experience than are specialized subarticles (e.g. a separate article on plant ecology) because of the need to be accurate but yet succinct. Maybe we can work together on some parts, as we did above on some evolutionary issues? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do what I can to be helpful. Thanks everyone for working as a team. 512bits (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Key scientists in the history of botany include Theophrastus, Ibn al-Baitar, Carl Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, and Norman Borlaug." C'mon, we can do better than this! Why does Borlaug (an Agronomist) rate inclusion among these giants. Are there no true botanists to represent 20th/21st century botany?? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How about Luther Burbank, Barbara McClintock? I would also like to include in that list someone from the Far East, but my knowledge of botanists from that region, sadly, isn't what it should be. 512bits (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable Botanists Removal Challenge

Per the short discussion above (on "Notable botanists"), the best way to slowly do away with the list is to insert the names already in it inside the relevant article sections. I will start by doing away with the two Greek people that are prominently featured in "Early botany". I won't remove the Muslim people (also in the aforementioned section) because more is still needed to be known about them and their work (in the section).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I took care of this. 512bits (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Plea for Biochemistry

I have just rattled this off—perhaps it could be hacked as the basis of a section. Probably does not need much more than this othere than a bit of linkage to topics and to notable contributors. Might also mention the relationship of this to the modern approach of metabolomics:

Plant biochemistry studies the chemical processes used by plants in their general or primary metabolism including, for example, the Calvin cycle and Crassulacean acid metabolism used in photosynthesis, and in the synthesis during growth of the specialized materials used in their construction, such as cellulose, lignin and cutin. Biochemistry also includes plant secondary metabolism, which is responsible for the production of many commercially valuable plant products such as the carnauba wax from Copernicia cerifera, rubber, spices (e.g. capsaicin), aromatic compounds such as essential oils, toxic compounds such as the alkaloid coniine from hemlock and opium from opium poppies. Plants also synthesize coloured dyes and pigments such as the anthocyanins and indoxyl, source of the blue dye indigo used traditionally used to dye denim. In modern plant science, biochemistry is just one of a suite of related molecular-scale biological disciplines, including genetics, molecular biology, genomics, proteomics and metabolomics, which may in turn be studied using computer modeling and informatics. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

...Is that one sentence? :)—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

...Yes, sorry :) Easily broken up however, as above. The last sentence is OR of course, but I believe it to be broadly true, and the Biochemistry article says something analogous. It is unlikely to be too difficult to find sources to support it. Also my apologies to those allergic to smurfs. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth emphasizing that plant biochemistry is largely the product of 20th century plant science, driven by 20th century understanding of Chemistry and the new technologies available for chemical analysis (spectroscopy, chromatography, etc.)Plantsurfer (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote for cutting the last sentence, throwing in some solid references, and adding to article. 512bits (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I presume the biochem bit is to go into Modern botany? Can we put it in there now so we can see things shaping up? Refs can follow. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sequence is important - the new bit on Biogeog. etc should come early, because developments there date from the very early part of the century. Odum was a great ecologist, and many people will see him as a founder of the subject, but the foundations of the concepts of plant community and succession came 15 years before he was born, with the work of HC Coles (1899)a,b,c,d The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Parts 1-4. Botanical Gazette, 27, 95-117, 167-202, 281-308, 361-391. He used the word succession in the title of his paper Cowles, H.C (1910) The fundamental causes of successions among plant associations. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1909, 668-670. Note "plant associations". The idea that plant communities changed progressively (we call this succession or vegetation change today, (see e.g. book by Colin Burrows ISBN 0-04-580013-8) towards a climax was already well developed by the time of Odum's birth, the climax concept expressed by Clements F (1916) Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institute Washington publication no. 242; Clements FE (1928) Plant succession and indicators. Wilson, New York; Clements FE (1936) Nature and structure of the climax. Journal of Ecology 24, 252-284. At the same time (1916-1939) AG Tansley had a major input to these ideas, and they were put to the test at the observational level by the work of WS Cooper (early 1920's to late 1930's) on plant succession on the moraines of retreating glaciers at Glacier Bay, Alaska. So ... my point is that Odum is a secondary source, and the foundations laid by these four pioneers of 20th C plant ecology need to be acknowledged. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Now to return to the topic of Katherine Esau. That article correctly states "Esau was a pioneering plant anatomist—perhaps the greatest plant anatomist of the 20th century. Her books Plant Anatomy and Anatomy of Seed Plants have been key plant structural biology texts for four decades." Spot on. Her achievement was huge, and her contribution remains the foundation stone of plant developmental research today. In my view she has to be mentioned in the Modern botany section. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The construction "One of the more urgent unanswered botanical questions ..." is WP:editorializing and needs to phrased more objectively. Also, some of these things are not unanswered questions, they are topics of intense, active research. see e.g.Reay, D., Dentener, F., Smith, P., Grace, J. and Feely, R.A. (2008) Global nitrogen deposition and carbon sinks, Nature geoscience 1(7) p.430-437 doi:10.1038/ngeo230 Korbetis, M., Reay, D. and Grace, J. (2006) New directions: Rich in CO2, Atmospheric environment 40(17) p.3219-3220 doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.032 Grace, J., Meir, P. and Malhi, Y. (2001) Keeping track of carbon flows between biosphere and atmosphere., Ecology: Achievements and Challenges, p.249-269 Geider, R.J., Delucia, E.H., Falkowski, P.G., Finzi, A.C., Grime, J.P., Grace, J., Kana, T.M., La Roche, J., Long, S.P., Osborne, B.A., Platt, T., Prentice, I.C., Raven, J.A., Schlesinger, W.H., Smetacek, V., Stuart, V., Sathyendranath, S., Thomas, R.B., Vogelmann, T.C., Williams, P. and Woodward, F.I. (2001) Primary productivity of planet earth: biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, Global change biology 7(8) p.849-882 Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Particularly since the mid-1960s, new understanding of plant physiology - water transport, physics of evapotranspiration and molecular diffusion, methods of measuring stomatal aperture, transpiration and rate of photosynthesis enabled precise description of the rates of gas exchange between plants and the atmosphere. These developments are very considerably the result of work by pioneers such as Monteith, Paul G Jarvis, Graham D Farquhar, John Grace, and underpin modern attempts to measure and model plant productivity and their contribution to the regional and global carbon and water cycles. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it would also be desirable to make a sentence on the colossal contribution to plant science (biological sciences generally) by the new statistics being developed by Ronald Fisher and Frank Yates. Dawkins called Fisher the greatest biologist since Darwin. Their contributions made rational experimental design and analysis possible. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is a no-brainer that biogeography dis not become possible until there was some kind of world view of plant distributions. The spice trade, etc. and the efforts of plant explorers such as Cook laid foundations prior to 20thC. Who are the key modern contributors? People like Eric Hultén undoubtedly. see e.g. Hultén, Eric (1958) The Amphi-atlantic plants and their phytogeographical connections. Kungl. Svenska vetenskapsakademiens handlingar, 4:7:1: 340 pp. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell. and other publications cited by the article on him. Then perhaps Nicholas Polunin (1960) Introduction to plant Geography. Longmans and his brother Oleg Polunin. Holdrige of Holdridge life zones fame, who summarized the relationship between climate and climax vegetation (miserable stub article that needs major development, but later). Plantsurfer (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Neolithic founder crops

The modern forms of the major staple foods, such as bananas and plantains maize and other cereal grasses and pulses, as well as flax and cotton grown for their fibres, is the outcome of prehistoric selection over thousands of years from among wild ancestral pants with the most desirable characteristics. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that what you wanted 512bits? Plantsurfer (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. I'll stick this in "Human nutrition". 512bits (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to pick out page numbers in Zohary & Hopf. The entire book is a masterwork on the topic, with chapters on individual founder crop categories. However, the bones of the point seem covered by the following statements: page 20 "the first definite signs of wheat and barley domestication appeared in the Fertile Crescent in the second half of the eleventh millennium cal (sic) BC." and p22 "several traits that characterize domesticated cereals (the domestication syndrome) seem to be the outcome of conscious or unconscious selection under domestication" (followed by list of such traits -erect plants, synchronous tillering and seed production, seed size, seed number, etc.) In Stover and Simmonds there is discussion of human selection of bananas on pages 106 through 126. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I added the page numbers. 512bits (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cladistics??

In the Systematics section, would it be appropriate do you think to make reference to cladistics? Plantsurfer (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Other missing items that occur to me are 20th C understanding of Plant Growth Regulators and micropropagation/plant tissue culture pioneered by Frederick Campion Steward, including the concepts that plant cells are totipotent and that they can now be genetically modified to produce useful products in vitro. Also, that these biotechnologies have facilitated molecular genetics and GM. Are there others that you have spotted? Plantsurfer (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to section sequence, and have re-located some paragraphs to other sections, largely conservatively. I have also added some bits to modern botany. My feeling about that section was that it has needed a kind of sub-lede, and I have tried to provide that. I am coming close to the point where my concerns about the article have been addressed (although, no doubt some refs and tidying still need to be done). What are the feelings of you all about the way it looks now, and where do you see the need for change and further development before it can go for FA. ?? Plantsurfer (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Early modern botany

OK, it is clear after leaving the article to digest for maybe an hour or two, that the Early modern botany section is not complete yet. No mention of Goethe. His ideas, expressed in Metamorphosis of Plants on the homology of leaves and other floral organs were prescient. The orphan sentence on the discovery of the nucleus sticks out like a ..., like a.. whatever. It needs addition of other contributions to cell biology from people like Hugo von Mohl and De Bary. These guys laid the foundations of the 20th century anatomy of Esau. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Important to us, but the history sections take up a big portion of the article. Most readers will get lost with so much detail. What do others think?512bits (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should write it in, and then subject the entire article to brief, (please), but rigorous précis, with the aim of removing all verbiage that doesn't earn/justify its space. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The History of botany article is what covers (or should cover) all notable subjects pertaining to the history of botany.

Our task is more difficult. We have to (basically) select those who are obviously the most important figures in terms of their contributions to the field.

For instance, on the "three German fathers of Botany", none (currently) seem important enough to be in this article. For them to stay, there should be a clear explanation as to how their work impacted botany. I mean, (hypothetically) I can also go outside and make my own original observations on plants. I guess the question you must answer (for all the people mentioned in the history section) is "So What?" (Why are they and their contributions relevant?)

And I'm not just picking on the Germans. The Golden Age Muslims also currently seem irrelevant. I don't even know why it is relevant to mention their woks.

Yes, I admit to being a complete ignorant on the history of botany; but so are most people. Your job as Feature Article editors is to eliminate ignorance. ;)--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I would vote for keeping the Germans in, perhaps expand a bit, but if others want them cut, ok. I think I added or expanded the Muslim people. My part was to make the article less European-centric.512bits (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrap up items

I think this is now quite sound. I made some tweaks. Some remaining items: 1) the intro para of Plant biochem sections needs refs. Which ones did you use to write it? 2) last para of Plant ecology needs refs 3) make the lede a nice abstract of the article 4) After the above three are fixed we submit to peer review or for feature status as MarshalN20 mentioned, how do we do that?

512bits (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to fix some of this over the weekend. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi 512bits The following book could be used as the source for all of this:

P.M. Dey and J.B. Harborne (eds.) 1997. Plant Biochemistry. Elsevier Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-12-214674-9

More specifically, its chapters could be used as follows

"Plant biochemistry studies the chemical processes used by plants in their general or primary metabolism including the Calvin cycle and Crassulacean acid metabolism used in photosynthesis," Chapter 2 - Photosynthesis , pp. 49-110, J.R. Bowyer, R.C. Leegood

", and in the synthesis during growth of the specialized materials used in their construction, such as cellulose," Chapter 5 - Carbohydrate metabolism: Structural carbohydrates, Pages 205-236, J.S.G. Reid lignin. Chapter 10 - Phenolic metabolism, pp. 387-416, D. Strack

"Biochemistry includes plant secondary metabolism, which is responsible for the production of many commercially valuable plant products such as the carnauba wax from Copernicia cerifera, rubber," Chapter 6 - Plant lipid metabolism, pp. 237-272, J.L. Harwood

spices (e.g. capsaicin), aromatic compounds such as essential oils, toxic compounds such as the alkaloid coniine from hemlock and opium from opium poppies." Chapter 12 - Special nitrogen metabolism, pp. 439-486, M. Wink

"Plants also synthesize coloured dyes and pigments such as the anthocyanins and indoxyl, source of the blue dye indigo used traditionally used to dye denim." Chapter 10 - Phenolic metabolism, pp. 387-416, D. Strack Plantsurfer (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model organism for plants?

Under Genetics, the article includes:

A green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, is a model organism that has proven important in advancing knowledge of cell biology.

Now I recall a big discussion about what counts as a plant, and looking at Botany#Scope and importance, it looks like the embryophyte definition won (I know, I know). So why are we including C reinhartii, a unicellular green alga, and a chlorophyte on top of that. C reinhardtii is useful because it has green chloroplasts like the embryophytes, but it's probably confusing to mention a "nonplant" as a model organism for plants.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If it looks like embryophyte "won", this is wrong. The set of organisms put under the title "botany" (itself rapidly becoming an obsolete term) varies from source to source. Green algae are often included. However, I agree that if this species is used here, some comment or qualification is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I think Kelvin should make his proposed changes. 512bits (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, over to you Kelvinsong Plantsurfer (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I will add the following text to the article if there's no objections:

While not an embryophyte itself, the single celled green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii has proven useful for study in some areas of plant cell biology because its cell is similar in some ways to those of plants—for example it contains a green-pigmented chloroplast related to the green chloroplasts in plants.

I also want to add the following (which I know from working on Chloroplast), but I don't know where to find specific references for it:

However, to obtain a better picture of plant cell biology, cells of land plants like spinach, Arabidopsis, and corn are also often studied.

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

C. reinhardtii is both an older model organism and a current plant model organism. It was used extensively for studies of photosynthesis (light reactions and carbon concentration mechanisms), and flagellar movement (motors) in green plants in general, then for cell growth, and cell cycle regulation. It is now being used for bioengineering to create plant recombinant proteins in its chloroplasts. A couple of ISBNs that I found in google book searches: 978-1-4419-7347-4, ISBN-13: 978-1560229995; it is considered a much safer factory than higher plants, it grows quickly, cheaply, and abundantly, plus there is lots of current information available and plenty of gene sequencing tools. It has some mutations that allow the study of certain types of processes in higher plants, also, such as nitrite and nitrate pathways. It should be mentioned as a primary model organism in botany. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No question at all that C. reinhardtii is a notable model organism for cell and molecular biology. Probably there is stuff that botanists can learn from it, but the same goes for many other organisms that we can't list here - see for example Model organism#Protists and Model organism#Plants. This article is no place to discuss the model organism credentials of C. reinhardtii. I vote to leave it out on the grounds that we have to draw a line somewhere, and for me that line is at multicellularity. C. r. doesn't have it. If there is strong feeling for mentioning C. r. at all, then its contribution to understanding of plants must be very clear. At present the sentence reads "A green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, is a model organism that has proven important in advancing knowledge of cell biology." Sorry, cell biology? - that's another article. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Plantsurfer, this should be left out and the topic cut out.512bits (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So…no Chlamydomonas reinhardtii at all? (And I just learned how to spell its name! ;) )—Love, Kelvinsong talk 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was not clear. I think that it should stay, but that its contribution to understanding of plants should be succinctly stated. The current statement that it advances knowledge of cell biology is inadequate. Since you know about photosynthesis, you are probably the best person for the job. Oh, and a relevant source. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, most plant specific chloroplast stuff comes from study of "real" plants like spinach, Arabidopsis, and corn. I think the algae like CyazonadanblahCyanidioschyzon merolæ (? What is it with algal names?) and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii are used for more "basal" chloroplast functions/features like ctDNA ^{[I have a reference but it doesn't have a doi, and I'm too lazy to write a full citation]}, photosynthesis, and chloroplast division (but often along with real plants like peas, soybeans, etc.) Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is used for example to study starch synthesis [4].—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the current sentence is worthless; I think that the most important thing for botany may be plastid reproduction specifically, but it may be photosynthesis in general. Someone would have to research it. For now, though, that particular sentence should not be in the article--my opinion. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if we're going to go into chloroplast division, that's going to stray even more off topic cause that was worked out thanks to studying Cyanidioschyzon merolæ, a red alga (along with spinach and Arabidopsis). See [5] for a good review on the topic.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

New text?

A variety of model organisms are useful for studying plant cell biology and the chloroplast. Corn has been used to study mechanisms of photosynthesis and phloem loading of sugar in C₄ plants. The single celled green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, while not an embryophyte itself, contains a green-pigmented chloroplast related to that of land plants, making it useful for study. The red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolæ has been used to study some basic chloroplast functions. Spinach, peas, soybeans, and Arabidopsis thaliana are commonly used to study plant cell biology too.

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is much better in my opinion. I'm ok with this. 512bits (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the article with references—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Gene sequences

In paragraph 2 of Genetics, I don't like the way that having dealt with the gene sequences of rice and Brachypodium, a whole clutch more grasses turn up in the next sentence, with only a single dicot. Isn't anybody sequencing anything more interesting?. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of genetics is little more than a badly-sequenced tutorial on generic genetics. There is nothing specific to plant genetics here, and therefore little that can justify being in this article. If there is nothing to say about plant genetics that is distinctive then it is not worth saying. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is only a general article on botany, not on plant genetics, so Arabidopsis thaliana and one grain would be fine, with a little more information about how these two relate to botany in general. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is crass, and it has to go. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. What is crass and has to go where? --AfadsBad (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The first para of the genetics section which I deleted. I think we should work on a better replacement for it, which specifies what is special and different about plant genetics. I will think about that (see below for ruminations so far), but meanwhile, if you have any good ideas . . . Plantsurfer (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thanked you for removing it, so I am obviously not disagreeing with its removal. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We must be able to make a better statement of plant genetics than this.

First we need to acknowledge the article of that name with a link. I am not making any endorsement of its content, but there are points there that we should summarise in Botany#Genetics e.g.

What is distinctive about plant genetics?:

1) the genes for the outer membrane of the chloroplast are encoded in plant nuclear DNA, while the rest of the chloroplast has its own genome, in the same way as in mitochondria

2) the chloroplast genome is passed to offspring via the pollen in gymnosperms, but via the maternal line in angiosperms. Similar generalization (with exceptions) applies to mitochondrial inheritance. see H.L.Mogensen (1996) The hows and whys of cytoplasmic inheritance in seed plants. Amer. J. Bot. 83 (3) 383-404.

3) polyploidy is common in the plant kingdom. why??? its function is....??? Speciation by ploidy (rare in animals)

4) How are plastids inherited by daughter cells during cell division?

5) Cytoplasmic male sterility

6) weaker species boundaries, breeding barriers, speciation by crossing

7) tunica corpus, chimeras, clones, plant propagation

Then, Given the importance of transgenics/GM both to fundamental plant science research and to practical applications of plant breeding there needs to be a statement on the subject here. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] For the first, that sounds very suspicious—it varies depending on the species, but the chloroplast DNA rarely codes for more than a couple hundred things, and a lot of the stuff inside the chloroplast also comes from the nucleus/cytosol (that's the point of the Tic-toc complexes). I've heard of at least one chloroplast DNA-encoded protein on the inner chloroplast membrane, nobody really knows for sure what goes on at the outer membrane. (This source says the proteins are from the nucleus [6]) Also, the outer chloroplast membrane is now known to be cyanobacterial, not eukaryotic. Mitochondria are not my forte, in animals their genomes are even smaller than the chloroplast DNAs—it's mainly a few tRNAs and redox proteins if I remember right. Though in plants, the mitochondrial DNA is just as big or bigger than the chloroplast DNA, so maybe that should be mentioned. Someone should probably look into this.

For the second point, it should be noted that a few angiosperms inherit chloroplasts paternally too. (See Chloroplast#Chloroplast inheritance)

Polyploidy as a speciation mechanism? I have a bio textbook that devotes a whole section to it.

That would be good as a source then. Is there a succinct summary statement that can be extracted from it?? Plantsurfer (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Plastid inheritance in mitosis—In algae it's tightly regulated, I think in plants its just random and depends on where a given chloroplast is in the cell. Should be mentioned that all chloroplasts can be traced back to proplastids in the meristems.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft Genetics paras

Species boundaries in plants can be weaker than in animals, and cross species hybrids are often possible. A familiar example is peppermint, Mentha × piperita, a sterile hybrid between Mentha aquatica and spearmint, Mentha spicata. The many cultivated varieties of wheat result from multiple inter- and intra-specific crosses between wild species and their hybrids. In many angiosperms, self fertilization may be prevented by self-incompatibility mechanisms operating between the pollen and stigma, so that the pollen fails to germinate.

Unlike in higher animals, where parthenogenesis is rare, asexual reproduction may occur by several different mechanisms. The formation of stem tubers in potato is one example. Particularly in arctic and alpine habitats, where opportunities for fertilization of flowers are rare, plantlets or bulbs, develop instead of flowers, giving rise to clonal populations genetically identical to the parent. This is known as apomixis.

As in other eukaryotes, the inheritance of endosymbiotic organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts is non-Mendelian. Chloroplasts are inherited through the male parent in gymnosperms but often through the female parent in flowering plants. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Made some changes and comments—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And a few more. "Apomixis" needs spelling out, and it's a tricky term anyway. (User:Sminthopsis84 seems to understand this topic, judging by the edit history of the article, and may be able to help.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribs. I have made some more changes above, and will contact User:Sminthopsis84 for advice on the apomixis statement. WP autocorrect keeps changing it back to apomixes - how can we train it? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Now all we need probably is a succinct statement of the relevance of polyploidy to plant genetics and speciation. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this, though it might be too long:

Plants often become autopolyploid, meaning they accidentally double their chromosome number in an event like a failure of cytokinesis. Most sexually reproducing organisms will be unable to produce viable offspring with other normal members of their species because their new chromosome number will be incompatible with them. However, since many plants can reproduce asexually, an autopolyploid individual can continue to reproduce, making a new species reproductively isolated from the parent species.

An allopolyploid plant can result from a hybridization event between two different species, which often results in sterile offspring with an odd number of chromosomes. It can still reproduce asexually, and a subsequent autopolyploidy event or hybridization events with the parent species can make the chromosome number even again, resulting in a new allopolyploid species.

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kelvinsong - I have been drafting along similar lines, but is what you say actually correct? Polyploids have difficulty crossing with individuals of different ploidy levels, but tetraploid and hexaploid plants are often fertile, though reproductively isolated from each other (mismatch in n). Wheats are a case in point. Incidentally I think we should use something like this as an e.g.: "Durum wheat is a fertile tetraploid allopolyploid, while bread wheat is a fertile hexaploid. The commercial banana is an example of sterile, seedless triploid hybrid." I am not an expert on this topic unfortunately :-( Plantsurfer (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated, isn't it. I see this line in the polyploid article under polyploid crops "The induction of polyploidy is a common technique to overcome the sterility of a hybrid species during plant breeding. For example, Triticale is the hybrid of wheat (Triticum turgidum) and rye (Secale cereale). It combines sought-after characteristics of the parents, but the initial hybrids are sterile. After polyploidization, the hybrid becomes fertile and can thus be further propagated to become triticale." Plantsurfer (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, it is true that I've worked fairly extensively on plant polyploidy and apomixis, and Plantsurfer, you are absolutely correct. Kelvinsong, it looks as if you may have picked up some of the work of G. Ledyard Stebbins who once responded to a question from a colleague of mine by saying that he concluded that he'd taken up the idea that autopolyploidy is common in angiosperms because he'd been rather overwhelmingly impressed by the colchicine experiments from the Albert Francis Blakeslee's lab, and could now see (this was at a conference) that there was a lot of evidence that autopolyploidy is not influential. Evidence has been accumulating in the last 50 years or so that autopolyploidy is rare in nature (and even more rarely viable), and that apomixis occurs in allopolyploids and is not (or almost never) an automatic byproduct of polyploidy, it requires alteration in several of the steps in reproduction (usually (1) bypass meiosis (2) bypass fertilization of the embryo (3) do something about the endosperm). New apomictic lineages seem to be usually the result of hybridization between a polyploid apomict and a sexual diploid. Sorry that I have to rush off right now, but I'll try to look in at intervals over the next few days. P.S.: "apomixes": no such English word, bugbear of apomixis researchers, ugh!. ]] (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sminthopsis84. I therefore propose the following text, which I hope indicates the basic facts while avoiding controversy. I hope you will correct any crassness.Plantsurfer (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Most sexually reproducing organisms are diploid, with paired chromosomes, but doubling of their chromosome number may occur, resulting in polyploids, either due to errors in cytokinesis (autopolyploidy) or during normal processes of cellular differentiation (endopolyploidy), as in adult human heart muscle, where several ploidy levels are present.or like in human skeletal muscle cells, which can have multiple nuclei and therefore multiple sets of chromosomes. An allopolyploid plant may result from a hybridization event between two different species. Polyploid plants of both types can often reproduce normally, but may be unable to cross-breed successfully with the parent population if there is a mismatch in chromosome numbers, resulting in new species that are reproductively isolated from the parent species but live within the same geographical area. If sterile, plant polyploids can still reproduce asexually or by apomixis, forming clonal populations of identical individuals. Durum wheat is a fertile tetraploid allopolyploid, while bread wheat is a fertile hexaploid. The commercial banana is an example of a sterile, seedless triploid hybrid.

One of the textbooks I have (same authors but different from the other one—mainly it has more pictures) says that >80% of plant species come from polyploidy, should this be mentioned? The same textbook has a page about the wheats mentioned, except it has Emmer wheat as the tetraploid. Also can we just say that the heart cells have multiple nuclei, and therefore more DNA—"ploidy", while fun to say, is not a concept that's quickly understood. Plus the Cardiac muscle cell article says they only have one nucleus. A plant example would be best, but I can't think of one. Plantsurfer, hope you don't mind me putting the "draft box" around your text and adding a few links.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Some suggested edits:

Most sexually reproducing organisms are diploid, with paired chromosomes, but doubling of their chromosome number may occur due to errors in cytokinesis. This can occur early in development to produce an autopolyploid or partly autopolyploid organism, or during normal processes of cellular differentiation to produce some cell types that are polyploid (endopolyploidy), or during gamete formation. An allopolyploid plant may result from a hybridization event between two different species. Both autopolyploid and allopolyploid plants can often reproduce normally, but may be unable to cross-breed successfully with the parent population because there is a mismatch in chromosome numbers. These plants that are reproductively isolated from the parent species but live within the same geographical area, may be sufficiently successful to form a new species. Some otherwise sterile plant polyploids can still reproduce vegetatively or by apomixis, forming clonal populations of identical individuals. Durum wheat is a fertile tetraploid allopolyploid, while bread wheat is a fertile hexaploid. The commercial banana is an example of a sterile, seedless triploid hybrid. Common dandelion is a triploid that produces viable seeds by apomixis.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's good,I've added it in. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.512bits (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Transgenics, GM, Biotechnology

Should we make a brief statement about these topics, in view of the fact that students are abandoning botany courses in droves to pursue these topics in other departments (mainly biomedical where the job prospects are good and they pay in mazumas). Cynical, moi?? Plantsurfer (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cynical? No. Clearly, you've observed what's going on (we just lost someone from our lab to a job with real permanent prospects in a hospital). If someone can find suitable references, there is work on Arabidopsis that's been funded as important to fundamental cell biology (i.e., cancer research). A section on this sort of work doesn't necessarily, I think, have to be directed only towards agriculture. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This will be good. I'll see what I can find.512bits (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. If you can't find enough material, let me know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

a very rough start below, feel free to add or change.....

Modern technology has greatly altered the study and nature of botany. It is no longer strictly the study of plants. Technologies such as Biochemistry, Biomedicine, Biotechnology, and transgenics that can improve functions in plants are altering the nature of the field. Fewer universities are offering botany as a major and are now integrating the material into other courses.

...512bits (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a difficult thing to express. The last Botany undergraduate course in the UK, at Bristol Uni finishes up this month, so traditional Botany courses are gone. But aspects of plant science are still taught at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and there is great research activity and innovation still happening in places like Botanic Gardens and research institutes, and of course plant research is still of huge commercial interest (see Monsanto and Syngenta, for example). In the early 60s botanists still worked with whole plants much of the time, and knew at least a little about the key areas of activity in the subject and the people involved in research and teaching. But the subject has grown hugely and has became progressively more interdisciplinary so that all other areas of science have been brought to bear on the botany, so that 30 years later it had begun to fragment into sub-departments. Today, with new sub-disciplines such as molecular technology so dominant in biology and biomedical sciences, many people argue that the methods of study of all organisms are fundamentally the same and that the traditional boundaries between biological subjects are now irrelevant. All biologists use fundamentally the same research technologies. Plants are used to study aspects of human cancer, and most of those plants have been transformed with reporter genes derived from jellyfish. Many of the areas of study, e.g. of the structure of a single protein, are so complex and difficult that very specialized and costly equipment is required, and the research worker may not even work on the live plant but on the elaboration of a virtual model of the protein or even just a part of it in his computer. And if the protein is relevant to core metabolism, its structure may be virtually identical in plants and all other organisms. So the problem is not that Botany today is not about the study of plants, but that current understanding is that they are not totally different from animals or bugs, and that interdisciplinary research technologies have effectively made biology one huge playing field, so big that no single person can hope to take it all in anymore, resulting inevitably in fragmentation into new factions, often themselves cross-disciplinary, such as structural biology or evolutionary biology, or stem cell research. This is rant, you understand, not intended as draft. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Since we're ranting, one consequence is that very soon there will be almost no academic botanists/plant scientists left who can identify plants. Let's hope that cheap DNA bar-coding comes soon! In about a week's time I'm going to the launch of a new Flora of the area of England where I live. Detailed knowledge of the distribution of plants is vital to the understanding of ecology, evolution, etc.; high quality Floras used to be at the foundation of the subject. University involvement in this Flora was limited to one senior (a.k.a. elderly) academic. University departments no longer regard the production of a Flora as a prestigious undertaking. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, plant id doesn't get too much contact time here either, but students still want it, and other organizations like yours and mine provide their needs now. Universities don't much like practical applications of anything (agriculture, for example) unless they are suitable for spinning out a company. I look forward to seeing your Flora. We could learn from you how to go about collecting the data. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Something to think about: http://aobblog.com/2013/07/seb2013-science-with-impact/ Plantsurfer (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

More perspective: http://www.botany.org/bsa/careers/car-cur.html Plantsurfer (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So what to do with this topic? I think we're down to this and the making the lede good. 512bits (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Stace, Clive (2010b). New Flora of the British Isles (3rd ed.). ....Hancock too

Who added this ref? It should probably have page numbers. 512bits (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Stace fixed, need Hancock still. 512bits (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• this one too: ^ Hancock, James F. (2004) Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. CABI Publishing. ISBN 0-85199-685-X. 512bits (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • this one is now fixed. Plantsurfer provided the page numbers. Thank you. 512bits (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Refs and lede

• 1) two paragraphs in modern botany need refs. I'll see what I can find....got the first one, the one starting "20th century" still needs refs 512bits (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

maybe: http://www.plantcell.org/content/early/2012/02/21/tpc.111.093302.full.pdf+html D.W. Ehrhardt and W.B. Frommer (2012) New Technologies for 21st Century Plant Science. The Plant Cell February 2012, doi: http:/​/​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1105/​tpc.​111.​093302 Plantsurfer (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

http://academia.edu/3314509/Under_One_Leaf._A_Historical_Perspective_on_the_UK_Plant_Science_Federation Plantsurfer (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Look good. I added them.512bits (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• 2) The lede needs the refs moved to the body if the topic is already covered. If not, that material needs added to the body with the ref moved there.

We're getting close! 512bits (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Apart from 512bits comments on the lede, which I endorse, is the general opinion that the lede is adequate?? It better be, because this may be the only section people read! Plantsurfer (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

:-), the overall structure hangs together much better but we need to brainstorm what's there, to get rid of any remaining crassness, naivety and repetition, and subject the whole text to rigorous précis. All hands on deck! Plantsurfer (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC) aka Verbociraptor ;=)

Yes, I feel and agree it's time for good final review/précis now. If anyone feels more needs added, feel free to further improve. I'm no expert on what wikipedia wants but I feel the team has done a good job. And yes, I agree the lede is much better.512bits (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrapup

1) First para in Plant Biochem needs refs. (I added two, ok?, can add more, 512bits (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

2) Did the clad thing we mention below get added?

3) We need to agree on British or American spelling. I've seen both.

4) The three refs still in the lede are specific to word etymology. We need to leave there. Or is there a way to put them in note or something? I'm not sure of the wikipedia rules on this.

512bits (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Botany

Could we please lose Cryptobotany from the list of subdivisions of botany? Plantsurfer (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

done 512bits (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Plant anatomy and morphology

"A plant's body has two divisions—the root system and the shoot system, which contains leaves and stems." Erm . . how does this apply to mosses and liverworts?? It is a little angiospermist. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"The root system and the shoot system cannot survive without each other—the usually nonphotosynthetic root system depends on the shoot system for food, and the usually photosynthetic shoot system depends on water and minerals from the root system." On the contrary, root cells are totipotent (see carrot), and can give rise to shoots, and vice versa. So the statement is not yet sufficiently clear and informative. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This section still needs work to achieve accuracy and balance. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Should probably forward this to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering systemic bias. The textbooks stress this root–shoot dichotomy so much I forgot about the mosses. Should definitely mention the adventitious roots and shoots stuff (on a side note, one of my neighbors recently cut down two trees to the stump after a fish-themed snowstorm disaster this winter, and there are now new shoots growing out of the old roots).

New draft?

With very few exceptions, the bodies of vascular plants including but not limited to ferns, gymnosperms, and angiosperms are divided into the root system (containing, obviously, roots) and the shoot system, which contains leaves and stems. Plants like mosses don't have true roots—nearly the entire plant is photosynthetic at some point (the sporophyte generation may become nonphotosynthetic at a certain stage of its life).

The root system and the shoot system are interdependent—the usually nonphotosynthetic root system depends on the shoot system for food, and the usually photosynthetic shoot system depends on water and minerals from the root system. Cells in each system are capable of creating cells of the other—these are called adventitious shoots or roots. Stolons are an example of shoots that can grow roots. In the event that one of the systems is lost, the other can often regrow it. In fact it is possible to grow an entire plant from a single leaf (as is the case with Saintpaulia) or even a single cell—which can dedifferentiate into a callus (a blob of unspecialized cells) that can grow into a new plant.

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cell biology is the study of their structural and physiological properties, including responses to stimuli, cell division, development at the molecular and microscopic scales and their differentiation into tissues." Why is (was) this sentence in the plant anatomy section? It is relevant how?? Plantsurfer (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's all fine with me. 512bits (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally got around to citing this and adding it to the article—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Progress

Are we nearly there yet? Plantsurfer (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Evolution section, paragraph 3 leads off with "Nonvascular land plants are embryophytes . . .". Embryophytes are defined in Scope and Importance, but that was a while back if you read at my rate and with my attention span :D Is it worth briefly reiterating the definition here?? Plantsurfer (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think not. 512bits (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not just remove "are embryophytes", it's like saying "red cars are automobiles.."—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable botanists still need to go away (the section). The people need to be included into the article. If they cannot be included in the article, then that probably means they are not notable enough for the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support—I prefer the article to be more focused on methods and advances in the field rather than people.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. A good number of those in the list are already in the body of the article. No need for duplication. And the remainder are either not sufficiently notable or could easily be replaced by others of equal or greater notability. Lists like this and the list of sub-disciplines are a sign of weakness in an article. They say "here's more stuff that we couldn't think how to organize into prose". Narrative text is to be preferred, or just leave them out. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. And I agree with Plantsurfer's analysis -- make the article readable, put lists elsewhere. Also, there is a section at the bottom that has subdisciplines in a drop-down menu. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I've never liked the list of notable botanists, because it's OR unless it copies entries from one or more highly reliable secondary or tertiary sources. There's a case for some botanists that are not in the article being in an organized "See also" section, perhaps. I also agree that a drop-down menu of subdisciplines is better than a list. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the case for that is diminished by the existence of List of botanists. Botany already links to List of botanists in the see also section, so job done imo. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A "See also" section would include specific important botanists, while this list includes all botanists--potentially usefully or interesting, the former, while the latter is not useful at all. (Is there a bot that updates it?) --AfadsBad (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I cut the notable botanists section per this agreement. 512bits (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Botany subdisciplines template

These are the subdisciplines listed in the article that are not listed as such on the botany template:

• Agronomy

No. Separate applied science Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Algae) -- should be Phycology, see below

No. This is not a discipline, although it may be a topic. The discipline is Phycology Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Arboriculture

No. Separate applied science Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bryology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dendrology

No. Is this a discipline or merely a technique? Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Economic botany

No. Separate applied science. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and this is the only one I can find a source for as a subdiscipline; that is why it is called "botany" with a qualifier though--it's a subdiscipline. But I agree with below that we should source these. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Forestry

No. Separate discipline. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Horticulture

No. Separate applied science Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lichenology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Mycology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Palynology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Phycology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Phytochemistry

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plant biochemistry

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plant genetics

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plant pathology

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plant systematics

Yes Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pomology

No. Separate applied science Plantsurfer (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently on the template:

• Ethnobotany
• Paleobotany
• Plant anatomy
• Plant ecology
• Plant evolutionary developmental biology|Plant evo-devo
• Plant morphology
• Plant physiology

I was going to just edit the template, but maybe we could discuss what should be listed? --AfadsBad (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Plantsurfer that we shouldn't treat agricultural or horticultural topics as subdisciplines of botany. My problem is then sourcing. Is there a sourced definition of a "subdiscipline" rather than, say, a "topic"? I can see that Paleobotany is a subdiscipline: it's often practised in a different university department (e.g. part of paleontology or geological sciences); it deals with issues outside "normal" botany, such as methods of fossilization or form classification; it has its own traditions, e.g. often seeming to use botanical names in a way closer to the zoological code; paleobotanists are poorly represented in IPNI* showing them to be a somewhat distinct group. But is plant morphology a "subdiscipline" or just a "topic" within botany? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  * I had 14 added to IPNI myself and there are more lined up here. If you come across any authors not in IPNI, they do like to be told.
  • I agree with Peter and Plantsurfer. 512bits (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this helps, but it is at the very least some kind of source for considering specializations in Botany: http://www.botany.org/resources/botany.php#Specialization Plantsurfer (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
      • A possible solution would be to create the article Subdivisions in Botany (or Specializations in Botany) and link to it in Template:Botany. This would give us the scope to deal with a more comprehensive list of subdisciplines and specializations, give them as much explanation as needed and at the same time place them in organismal, applied etc. categories. The shortlist of subdisciplines listed in the template can then be seen as examples, rather than an OR selection. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
        • A search for Branches of Botany picks up loads of stuff from within WP - micropaleaoethnobotany (no, not really but almost!) - the subject really is very broad. I think this would make a good title. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with cutting what you proposed if that helps. 512bits (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Botany, etymology

I feel I have to challenge, once again, the etymology of Botany as stated in the article.

The article states ".... and that from βόσκειν boskein, "to feed or to graze" " attributing the source to Online Etymology Dictionary. Firstly, the words "and that from" have no subject in the preceding part of the sentence, so the meaning is obscure. Secondly, the Online etymological dictionary does not refer to boskein as a source for the words botany or botanic. Here are the relevant entries in the dictionary:

"botany (n.) 1690s, from botanic. The -y is from astronomy, etc. Botany Bay so called by Capt. Cook on account of the great variety of plants found there.

botanic (adj.) 1650s, from French botanique (17c.) or directly from Medieval Latin botanicus, from Greek botanikos "of herbs," from botane "a plant, grass, pasture, fodder." The Greek words seems to have more to do with pasturage than plants; cf. related botamia "pastures, meadows," boter "herdsman," boton "grazing beast." " Plantsurfer (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This agrees with the Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology (1993). The chain is firmly Greek βοτάνη to βοτανικός to Latin botanicus then either directly or via the French botanique to English "botanic", with "botany" a back-construction. However, Wiktionary gives the derivation of βοτάνη as from βόσκω, which is the modern Greek equivalent of βόσκειν (the latter is the ancient infinitive; modern Greek doesn't have an infinitive and the first person ending in -ω is used in dictionaries instead). Several online New Testament Greek concordances (easily found by a Google search) give the same origin of βοτάνη. The suggestion is that originally βοτάνη mean something like "a thing suitable for a grazing animal to eat". I've re-written the lead a bit. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peter and his changes on this one. Good job. 512bits (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

like Plantsurfer (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion from etymology?

The text says Botany began in prehistory as herbalism with early human efforts to identify—and later cultivate—edible, medicinal and poisonous plants ... Perhaps the etymology suggests that it began with efforts to identify suitable fodder for domesticated grazing animals? (This is OR, of course, unless a source can be found for this view.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Domestication of animals came rather late in the day though. Humans were hunter-gatherers and herbalists first, farmers much later, only comparatively recently. Some Amazonian tribes (for example) still live this way, hunting, fishing, growing some crops, but with deep knowledge of wild plant species and their uses for food (figs) in medicine, hunting (curare) for recreation as stimulants and in religious ceremonies as mind-altering drugs. I don't think it would be too hard to find a source to substantiate this view, but this early herbalism predates recorded history. The Greek fodder-centric view was very avant-garde, and comes from a culture that had settled into agriculturalism and recorded their history. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but did ithe word botany originate with the prehistoric herbalism? We're talking about the word itself here, not the early science. 512bits (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We talk about both of these things in the lede in separate sentences, and the herbalism origin appears again in Early Botany. I personally don't see any confusion or conflict between them. I don't see the need to labour the point about efforts to identify suitable fodder for domesticated grazing animals. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only a few extra words. I happen to like the change the change Peter made. 512bits (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)