Talk:Gossypium

Phylum

I'm not a botanist, so I am confused as to why this plant has no phylum listed. When I checked on other websites, I got more than one answer. Can anyone explain why different people classify this plant so differently?

This Wikipedia article currently states:

Kingdom: Plantae

Division: Magnoliophyta

Class: Magnoliopsida

Order: Malvales

Family: Malvaceae

Genus: Gossypium

However, plants.usda.gov/classification states:

Kingdom Plantae -- Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta -- Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta -- Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta -- Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida -- Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Malvales

Family Malvaceae -- Mallow family

Genus Gossypium L. -- cotton P

And bats.ch/molspec states this:

Popular Name: Cotton

Super Kingdom: Eukaryota

Kingdom: Viridiplantae

Phylum: Streptophyta

Sub Phylum: Embryophyta

Division: Tracheophyta

Subdivision: Spermatophyta

Super Class: Magnoliophyta

Class: Rosidae

Super order: Euroside ii

Order: Malvales

Family: Malvaceae

Genus: Gossipium

And http://merops.sanger.ac.uk/cgi-bin/speccards?sp=sp003417&type=p states that:

Superkingdom Eukaryota

Kingdom Viridiplantae

Subkingdom Streptophyta

Phylum Embryophyta

Subphylum Tracheophyta

Superclass Magnoliophyta

Class Magnoliopsida

Subclass Rosidae

Order Malvales

Family Malvaceae

Genus Gossypium

Thank for your help. RK 17:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Have you checked out the tree of life (TOL) web site? I would trust that to be the most up to date source on the web. Alternatively contact an expert in the field, for example, David Baum works on the phylogenetic analysis of the Core Malvales and is a contributor to the TOL web site.

• Tree of Life
• David Baum

I hope this helps, David D. 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you say that However, plants.usda.gov/classification states:, implying that they disagree. As far as I can see the wikipedia article is in agreement with the USDA. Bear in mind that classification is a moving target and as more data are collected the classification schemes may be adjusted. I assume this explains the differences between the above sources. This is even more reason to consult an expert. David D. 18:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia and the first USDA listings are virtually identical. Wikipedia taxoboxes do not give all of the super- and sub- levels on purpose to simplify the presentation. - Marshman

Sorry i just realised that you trying to find the phylum name, so, I agree, USDA is not really much help in that regard.David D. 18:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Differences in the classifications given are at higher taxonomic levels and therefore not in any specific way related to the cotton plant. You would need to read the text for each level either here or in some other source to understand the arguments as to how these higher taxa are arrived at and supported (or not) by various botanists. I am confused by one aspect of your question: are you looking for the word "phylum" in each taxonomy example? Botany uses the term "division" for this level. Since all of the examples you give place the cotton plant in the Family Malvaceae, I see no important difference in the listings. The taxa above family are really pretty much determined by experience, habit, and personal preference, and as Daycd points out, always subject to a certain amount of flux as new information (and new interpretations) are put forth. - Marshman 19:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Phylum

I believe I can help with this. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature has always specified the name Division be used until the last meeting (6 years ago). Now botanists are able to use the term Division and Phylum interchangably. The rank is the same so they cannot be used at the same time. The classification listed at bats.ch is incorrect.

Asside from that there is a moving window of classification. As we find more information about plant and animals the classifications change. In addition there are some botanist who do not wish to follow the nomenclature rules.

The Wikipedia article and Plants Database reflect a majority view of the classficiation of Cotton. The Plants Database just has additional, interculated ranks.

SteveC

Plant raising info

I've got some cotton seeds (at about 10) and I wanted to plant them on a vase only for display. I was wondering if you could help me telling how many days the seeds need to sprout, how much time it would need to appear the first flowers, the right temperature, if the seed and the plant need special care on something, things like that. It would be interesting to add those to the article too. Thanks a lot for the help. Raquel Sama 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've bought a cotton plant, and I don't know if I need two to get good seeds or if they are self fertilzing. Does anyone know? It would be nice if someone could give me a web site that told you all the plants. thks```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rube Goldberg1234 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetics

I learned in a class that this genus is tetraploid. Should this be noted in the article? Ninjatacoshell 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps we should. You certainly know more than me, so:

1. Do you know how unusual or notable it is?
2. Do you happen to have a reference?

If so, go ahead I would guess. And welcome. Fred 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not that unusual. ~70% of grasses are polyploids and ~55% of flowers. And, no, I don't have a reference. Ninjatacoshell 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference for this, but don't know enough biology to be able to incorporate it in the article.

Polyploidy and the Evolutionary History of Cotton. Jonathan F. Wendel(1) and Richard C. Cronn(2)

1) Department of Botany, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. 2) Pacific Northwest Research St, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/WendelAdvAgron2002.pdf

The paper also confirms, from a genetic perspective, MacNeish's claim that cotton in the US originated in western Mexico. Cottonshirt (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Common name

Seems like this should be renamed "Cotton plant".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

function of fibers

What is the biological function of the fibers? Do they help the seed travel from the plant, like a dandelion clock? Do they pad it? They're certainly not edible...why did the evolve?165.91.64.144 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)RKH

Sequencing status needs update

The D genome has been sequenced.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gossypium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201042838/http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/monsanto-illumina-key-milestone-cotton-genome-sequencing.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/monsanto-illumina-key-milestone-cotton-genome-sequencing.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gossypium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717055733/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?5113 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?5113

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)