Talk:Botany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Botany is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Botany is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Botany is part of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Gardening and the Horticulture. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] Help requested for Cotton plant
Can anyone help out with a classification issue at Talk:Cotton plant? RK 17:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
