Talk:History of botany

Status

This page is still under development. Please do not tag until it is flagged as "complete" on this page. Granitethighs 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK - there is still some fine-tuning but I have removed the "under construction" tag and will give this article a rest from me for a while. It seems rather long but is well under the length of many featured articles.Granitethighs 01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I am delighted to find this article, but still would like to suggest some changes.

• The first sentence should clearly say what the subject is in such a way that the notability can be understood. The start in this article seems to assume the the context is given. See for example how GA history of paleontology begins.  Done
• Another good way to help setting the context would be to link to botany in the first paragraph.  Done
• A third way to help setting the context would be to use something more explanatory as the first illustration, for example the photo shown here to the right.  Done
• The history of the term biology is not needed in this article.  Done
• Most notable of the ... A verb seems to be missing in the second half of the sentence. For facts, this sentence is rather vacuous. In the end, the reader is invited to add any subtopic that is missing in the lists of most notable. Maybe a less pretentious beginning would correspond better to the actual content of this sentence.

I take your point and have tried to improve the expression here - but it may need some more work. What do you think?

• The rather subtle distinction between morphology and anatomy is taken for granted in the Introduction.  Done
• special plant groups Maybe it should be made clearer that although algae is often called a group, it is not a taxon.

I take your point and have tried to improve the expression here - but it may need some more work. What do you think?

• is now treated elsewhere Does this mean that mycologoy is not included in botany? Botany says it is included. The demarcation of "botany" is very difficult. As the perception of biological relationships has changed drastically, taxonomy-based subject definitions have been preserved to a large extent. Therefore the Introduction needs a rather elaborate discussion about what is meant by botany. Maybe this quote from "Biology of Plants", 1999, p 11, 12, can be of help for a first step: Included in this book are all organisms that have traditionally been studied by botanists: plants as well as procaryotes, viruses, fungi, and autotrophic protists (algae). Only the animals have traditionally been the province of zoologists. Although we do not regard algae, fungi, prokaryotes, or viruses as plants, and shall not refer to them as plants in this book, they are included here because of tradition and because they are normally considered as part of the botanical portion of the curriculum, ... but they still fall loosely under the umbrella of botany. Illustrating how the concept of botany itself has changed over time is in my view an important task of this article.

Mycology, once part of botany, has in recent times taken its own course - being a separate kingdom is a substantial division. Though mycologists often work with botanists I think they would like to tell their own history of the topic - like people studying ferns and mosses. I think this is the best approach for Wikipedia and have adjusted the wording accordingly. I also think the article on botany is actually misleading on this and needs updating. Is it clearer now?

• This marked the domestication What does marked mean here? This seems to refer to formation of settled communities. Does this mean that we can now observe that people settled, and from this draw the conclusion that domestication of plants and animals and invention of writing occurred? I think that the direction of causation between domestication and settlement is contentious. First writing was much later than first domestication + settlement. But I think the only elements we need here are domestication of plants and invention of writing. Contemporary hnter/gatherers are normally very knowledgable about their flora. We can be fairly confident that so were many paleolithic people. Then, with domestication, there is a change in the knowledge about the domesticated plants. Then, with writing there is a gnage in the possibility of preserving knowledge about plants.

I take your point and have tried to improve the expression here - but it may need some more work. What do you think?

• I haven't yet read through the whole article. But my impression is that apart from the introductions, it is concerned only with the study of Plantae. I would have wished for an article about the history of Botany to show also how the demarcation of Botany itself has changed with developing insights into the subject matter. I think for example that Carl von Linné once placed the mushrooms in Vermes, Zoology. But a general principle in Wikipedia is to describe phenomena, rather than concepts, and use the words with the meaning they have today. So, is this article too narrow? I will not persist on this. But I would like to say that I find it very valuable, consistent and well written.

I'm sure this can be done but it needs thought ... and, unfortunately, space. In spite of the loss of fungi I think the general idea of plants has remained pretty constant over time. I have tried to give some feel for the conceptual transition you talk about, especially for more recent times. I wonder what Carl would have made of molecular systematics for instance? Probably not botany. Are you prepared to spell out your concerns in a little more detail? Granitethighs 12:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

--Ettrig (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Ettrig - very constructive comments. If it is OK with you I shall tackle each point you have made (will reply to each point as it is above) and then we can move on from there.Granitethighs 12:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The first half of Developmental Morphology is about Evolution. Evolution is not a sub-topic of Developmental Morphology. --Ettrig (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hello, I will review this article. It might take some time due to the length of the article but it will get done. I will make comments of what needs improving below.

Many thanks Esuzu for taking on this review. Granitethighs 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• On a quick look I notice that many of the paragraphs are missing closing citations. That will need to be fixed.

That's fine I'll search out those that have unsubstantiated assertions and therefore require citations.Granitethighs 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

•  DoneRef 25 not linking to the book as it should.
•  DoneTake care of weasel words (WP:Weasel words): "It is claimed that Ghini invented the first plant press and compiled the first herbarium." is one.
• There is a lot of redundant words that are vague and just make the article to "wordy." Examples which I found in the article is "all", "many", "some", "several", "a number of". Try to remove them if possible or replace them with a more precise word.
•  Done"It must be assumed that, of necessity, nomadic hunter-gatherer societies passed on by oral tradition their empirical findings about different kinds of plants and their use as food, shelter, poisons, medicines, for ceremony and so on, this being embedded in the folk-taxonomies of pre-literate societies." does not sound like a encyclopaedic entry. "It must be assumed that" should be changed to (for example) "Mr X believes that..."
•  DonePeople should not have to click on a wiki-link to know what something is. An example is in "Early botany" section. "The Atharvaveda divides plants..." you have to introduce the new thing somewhat, just "the sacred Hinduism text Atharvaveda" would suffice. This needs to be fixed in more places.
•  DoneThe three last paragraphs in the "Ancient India" section are very short and feels more like they wore a list. Try to combine them to one paragraph and try to make them into prose. For example, "other examples of Indian..."
•  Done"Like Aristotle he grouped plants as "trees", "undershrubs", "shrubs" and "herbs" but also distinguished annuals, perennials and biennials; monocotyledons and dicotyledons; he noted the difference between determinate and indeterminate growth, also details of floral structure including the degree of fusion of the petals, position of the ovary and more." is a very long sentence. Please try to re-structure it. (Makes it easier to read)
•  Done"In these lecture notes of Theophrastus we have the first clear exposition of the rudiments of plant anatomy, physiology, morphology and ecology — presented in a way that would not be matched for another eighteen centuries." - avoid pronouns like "we", it gives the feeling that there is a narrator that is telling it
•  Done"he frequently quotes Theophrastus but with little botanical insight." the bold text should probably be a quote.

Thanks Esuzu, I will work through these points one at a time and tick them off. They are all useful. Could I ask that you keep to substantive suggestions (as you mostly do). I notice that you have for example changed "like a modern university" to "resembles" a university. There are a couple of issues here. I appreciate brevity in editing as a general principle but simply reducing word count to a minimum at all times can cause stylistic problems. Articles are encouraged by Wikipedia to be "engaging". This means a reader-friendly style. Naturally this is a matter of taste but some leeway needs to be given here. I am simply suggesting that there are more important things to worry about. Also the Lyceum existed in the past - so the word would be "resembled", not "resembles" ... no need to make more work than necessary. Your comments are nevertheless extremely useful - I will try to keep up with you. Granitethighs 11:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

•  DoneIn the "Medicinal plants of the early Middle Ages" section you use the Chinese and Arabian names after the westernised one. It mostly clutters the page and makes it harder to read. If people want to see the Chinese signs they can click on the wikilink. I think it would be best if they were removed.
•  Done"It is claimed that Ghini invented the first plant press and compiled the first herbarium." who claims it?
•  Done"By the eighteenth century the physic gardens had been transformed into "order beds" that demonstrated the classification systems that were being devised by botanists of the day, their modern day equivalents being known as "systems gardens", but first they had to accommodate the influx of botanical trophies of curious, beautiful and new plants that were the result of horticultural exploration and the first stirrings of European colonial expansion." is a looong sentence. Try to separate into more smaller.
• In the "Botanical exploration" section. The Apostles of Linnaeus could perhaps be worth mentioning?
• In the whole "The European Renaissance and after 1550–1800" there is very little information about other places in the world. How did things go in for example Asia and Arabia? How were their botany progressing? Is there anything worth mentioning?
•  Done"Early work in this area was synthesised by Copenhagen professor Eugenius Warming (1841–1924) in" Copenhagen should probably be replaced by Danish.
•  DoneUnder "Carbon fixation (photosynthesis)" there is a dab link to Mayer
•  DoneIn the intro of "Twentieth century" there is two sentences ("Research funding was..." and "By 1910 experiments...") that to me feels awkward by themselves. Try to put them in a better context.

General

• There is a lot of wikilinks in the text. Try to reduce them to only the most important are left. Also, you only need to link for example "Pig" on the first occurrence.
• As I mentioned earlier, the text will need a few more references. Every paragraph needs inline citations. Some paragraphs are missing it entirely, some have some but no closing citations.
• Try to check if both western and the rest of the world's history is described.
• There are some references not linking to their books correctly. Please check all references and make sure that they work.
• When you use quotations the " should be after the dot not before it. I saw this sometimes and corrected at least one, please make sure it is correctly formatted. (example: "Hi, I like cucumbers." not "Hi, I like cucumbers".[sic])

 Done*Several different dab links, they need to be fixed. You can find them on [1]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Needs some work before it is GA standard

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   More references is needed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Check the rest of the world

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Some captions could be more engaging but that is no criteria

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is currently on hold until all the problems have been addressed.

I am now failing this article since absolutely nothing has been done in the last seven days. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough E, I got caught up in other things. I have now tackled the minor edits and will address your more general suggestions over the next week or two before resubmitting. Thanks for your help. In the dablinks I was not sure how to deal with Thomas Knight who does not have a link but who i cannot put in red because there are other Thomas Knights.Granitethighs 11:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear ranks?

 Done The article currently says: Eighteenth century plant taxonomy bequeathed to the nineteenth century clear ideas of the family, genus and species. this is in contrast with my view and for example Family (biology) that says: What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. Not only does that article provide this excuse. It does not even try to define how closely related to species (genuses (genii)) need to be to be considered as belonging to the same family. In a way, the concept is very clear: bigger then the genuses it consists of (most of the time), smaller than the order (superfamily) it belongs to. As clear as this is, it is rather vacuous, not really something to highlight as an achievement. Maybe there is more to the rank concepts than I am aware of. In this case it should be described or at least referenced. --Ettrig (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Done

Fair enough. I'll revisit this section and select my words more carefully.Granitethighs 12:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the entire article and am re-submitting for GA.Granitethighs 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the following passage from History of plant systematics better characterizes Linneaus' systematics:

Although meticulous, the classification of Linnaeus served merely as an identification manual; it was based on phenetics and did not regard evolutionary relationships among species.

--Ettrig (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ettrig. Linnaeus believed in special creation - evolution was a long way off. I have included assessments of Linnaeus's work in a couple of spots: you might want to check out Philosophia Botanica#Historical assesssment.Granitethighs 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of botany/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, follows the MoS sufficiently.

   I made a number or minor copy-edits.[3]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced, references check out, assume good faith for off line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A good, but not over detailed summary with links to appropriate sub-articles

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The text is awkwardly sandwiched between File:Mature flower diagram.svg and File:Angiosperm life cycle diagram.svg  Done

   Otherwise images licensed, tagged and captioned well

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days. Just some image re-arrangement needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for sorting that out. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of botany. 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/20100107100740/http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/01.htm to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/01.htm

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Replaced dead link with live one --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

Cleaned up, and curated into sections rather than a long list. References cleaned up to link with bibliography using short footnotes, and all "see" references removed as redundant.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear:, I appreciate all the good work you've done on History of botany, but the editor's note you added has an air of ownership to it. Essentially the biblio is "curated" in the same way as all articles on Wikipedia are. By everyone and anyone. You cannot appoint yourself curator and add an editor note that suggests permission or a special status is required to edit it.

If there is some particular style or criteria for inclusion you'd like to suggest for the biblio, then put that in the editor note. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely not ownership! Although the idea was not mine - I copied it from another complex bibliography. The reason I put the comment there and on similar pages ws twofold:

1. In response to a request from another editor on a similar page who wanted an explanation of the approach used before proceeding to add material

2. Finding on repeat visits, that new material had been added in a haphazard matter. GA pages at the very least require a consistency of style.

There most definitely was no intention to do anything like what you seem to be suggesting. However since you raise the issue of curation, I would disagree. Many many pages have very haphazard bibliographies, if at all. Curation indicates a method of arrangement to facilitate maintenance and navigation. If someone wants to "be bold" and come up with a better method, they are very welcome! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

School of Athens

Is there a reason that a detail is used of School of Athens instead of the whole painting? Seems kind of pointless, especially when the image is already so large. (Read through some of the article though - its very well done) Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Botany 1st year

History btado 27.97.153.184 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ancient India

cation is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika The reference doesn't even mentions about it Reference is given below. https://archive.org/details/historyofbotanic0000mort/mode/1up Harikrishnayappa34 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Harikrishnayappa34: the question is whether this early writing constitutes "botany", if a distinction is made between 'scientific' and purely descriptive accounts of plants. Merely putting plants into descriptive categories doesn't, in my view, constitute "botany". Were distinctions made that relate to the function of parts? Theophrastus, for example, made distinctions that are still relevant today, e.g. between leaves and leaflets composing leaves, or between superior and inferior ovaries. Are there such distinctions in the early Indian writings? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This user is/was evading a ban, and will not be responding to your reply. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lacks verifiability(Ancient India)

Most of the text contained under the section Ancient India lacks verifiability. The texts that failed verification when checked with the already provided source is marked with failed verification span as shown below

An early example of ancient Indian plant classification is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika.

As it is evident, only the first and last line seems to be verifiable with the page 12 of the cited article. Checked the rest of the book also, the result is same.

Going through this article's edit history, several users seems to have figured this issue and improved the article with verifiable information contained with the already cited source material, also by removing these lines, but it ends in reverting back citing block evasion (I haven't gone through the details of each reversions). For whatever reason, it was a huge mistake not to cross check these lines if it matches the cited source before doing the reversion, and because of that mistake, these unverified lines have remained in this wikipedia article for so long that it may have influenced many common readers of Wikipedia. Verifiability is the core principle of Wikipedia, instances like this undermines this platforms credibility. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References