Talk:Plant neurobiology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New page title?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any objections to moving this page to Plant sensory physiology (with some rewriting to match the new title)? That would, I think, help move it away from WP:FRINGE territory, and facilitate inclusion of more accepted science. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references in this article have plant neurobiology in the title. I'd recommend creating a new article with new references. pgr94 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the references are either criticizing the concept, or WP:FRINGE. In the end, this page would simply be merged into such a new article anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Plant perception (physiology)? Wouldn't Plant sensory physiology overlap significantly with that article? pgr94 (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I wonder, however, whether we really need this page in addition to that one, as opposed to merging this page into the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that Google hits only go so far in providing useful guidance for notability, but for what it's worth, Google Scholar hits for: plant neurobiology, 30,600; plant perception, 706,000; plant physiology, 1,290,000. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about plant neurobiology, but in animal neurobiology neurons are involved in more than sensation. Do they regulate the equivalent of reflex, autonomic or vegetative processes in plants? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no neurons in plants -- that's what makes the term plant neurobiology so dubious. Looie496 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why I hadn't heard of them. :) I just read the article. Sorry, I should have done that before asking dumb questions. This is quite an interesting metaphor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see more editors here. It seems to me that this page is really flirting with WP:FRINGE. What would be the best options in terms of merging or renaming it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no position to decide anything on this, I'm afraid. But I'll watch with interest. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title is misleading and unscientific. Would a research article done under the same category be published in Science and Nature under the same title? What would the researchers name it? -- RexRowan  Talk  09:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is an emerging consensus in this discussion that, at a minimum, it is dubious to imply that plants have nervous systems or neurons. I was therefore disappointed to see this: [1]. Really? We need a source to show that plants do not have neurons? There are plenty, and some are already cited on this page. But no matter. I'm certainly not going to edit war over a category.

We already have other pages on Plant intelligence, which deals with the metaphor and links to this page as a "mechanism" thereof, Plant perception (physiology), which deals with the actual science, and Plant perception (paranormal), which, um, doesn't. There's pretty much nothing in this page that doesn't repeat what is in one or another of those three, beyond the pushing of the fringe term "plant neurobiology" itself. So I'm proposing this:

Merge proposal. Plant neurobiology should be merged, with some of the content going to Plant intelligence, some going to Plant perception (physiology), and some going to Plant perception (paranormal). It would then become a redirect to one of those pages. I'd lean towards making it a redirect to whichever one would contain most of text from here about the "neurobiology" term itself, and I'm open to discussion as to which page that should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Discussion listed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Plant neurobiology. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have neurons, I simply suggested it should be renamed to suit its content. -- RexRowan  Talk  19:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per IRWolfie. Both Plant neurobiology and Plant intelligence are presenting their topics 'in universe' - they are making specific claims inherent in the article names that, when cornered, even the scientific supporters admit to be using only by analogy. We might as well have articles on slime mold intelligence. (Oh wait, we do !?!.) I am reminded of Gould's intentionally absurd argument that water in a puddle must have been designed because it fits the shape of the depression perfectly. Here the water must have intelligence because it is able to sense and conform to that shape. We are doing nobody a favor by having these articles that portray normal biological functions found as the simplest bacteria, such as chemotaxis, as if plants were one step short of being able to solve a Rubik's cube. Two articles, one on the actual science and one on the nonscience, are sufficient. We don't need additional articles on metaphoric usages that pretend to be one while being mostly the other. Agricolae (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge Plant: neurobiology, intelligence, perception (physiology). I have no opinion on merging Plant perception (paranormal). Plant sensory as the new title sounds good.
http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/09/a-bit-touchy-plants-insect-defenses-activated-by-touch-2/ <- I believe this has been scientifically demonstrated way before this study. Sidelight12 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be easier to keep Plant perception (physiology) and merge into that. Plant intelligence is almost a replica of it. Plant neurobiology is a subset of the section contact stimuli. Forget naming it for search engine results, the category, redirects, and article text will take care of that, and renaming it can be done later. Keep any information that is well referenced, and eases the merging process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidelight12 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with the outcome of this discussion, I want to note that it is usual practice to allow the discussion to continue longer before actually rendering any pages as redirects, so I suppose that it is possible that someone may raise questions about the move later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed edits[edit]

This was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plant_neurobiology&diff=496439657&oldid=485683212 ):

They also produce specific chemicals that allow the triggering of specific functions, such as the increasing of plant defenses (ie by increasing tannins in the leafs[1], by ordering other organisms such as ants[2], ichneumon wasps to attack grazers), to trigger plant dormancy[3], ...

Btw external predators are lured by the plant by excreting kairomones. ref: http://www.plantenziektekunde.nl/UserFiles/Image/PDF/MinksDickeklein.pdf

  1. ^ Acacia able to increase tannins upon sensing ethylene gas
  2. ^ Plant ordering ants to attack grazers
  3. ^ In the mind of plants; documentary by Jacques Mitsch
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plant_neurobiology&oldid=1137088268"