Talk:Carnivorous plant

Carnivore Plant in West Himalayas
The forest department of Uttarakhand and the Botanical Survey of India have discovered a carnivorous plant - Utricularia Furcellata in Mandal, Chamoli district at an altitude of about 4,800 feet. It is the first time that the plant has been seen anywhere in the entire western Himalayas. The said plant has been documented by 'Japanese Botany', a 104 year old prestigious Japanese journal. The plant was last seen 37 years ago in 1986 in Meghalaya.It thrives on mosquitoes,larvae, tadpoles, and protozoa. The plant has a typical bladder-shaped structure, through which it traps its prey. For digestion of the trapped prey ,it uses hormones and chemicals. The plant is very small in size and blooms between June and September.Rains play and important role in its survival. The plant is very rare and can be highly harmed to biotic pressure. It is mostly found in wet soil and freshwater which has been confirmed by Botanical Survey of India. The plants strikes a balance in the ecosystem and also plays a major role in the food chain. They need less nutritive soil to grow and photosynthesis is not performed like regular plants .Sujasi (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdamBiolGuy123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duckmyles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Medicinal uses
I think it's important to note the university that published this research to indicate that this was a serious academic study, but I agree it's not necessary to include the nationality of the researchers. Chefallen (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be more accurate to say that researchers at the university published a study (the university doesn't actually do the publishing). Regardless, those news aggregator sources aren't that reliable. And I can't actually find the published study in the Journal of Experimental Biology. Any ideas if it has just not been published yet and the press releases are coming out ahead of publication? --Rkitko (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found the source of the news articles is a press release issued by the university which says the research was published in the Journal of Experimental Biology. Do you have the printed journals for a few months back to check? In any case, it is hard to imagine that an academic institution with an international reputation to protect would fabricate all this even if we can't find the article in the jounal yet. The university itself should be considered a reliable source and based on that, wouldn't you agree the information can be restored? -- Chefallen (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting the university is being dishonest. I was wondering if the article hasn't been published yet; often articles are accepted for publication, but published in the next month's issue. I searched several terms from the study and the authors going back through an entire year, but came up with nothing. You can search if you wish: . Press releases are often written by public relations departments without much input from the scientists who did the studies. Case in point, there's a new study published on the toxic effect of cadmium build-up in insect prey that proved to be lethal to carnivorous plants in the study at certain concentrations. Nowhere in the study did the authors suggest heavy metal build-up from industrial sources or roads was a leading or even contributing cause of world-wide carnivorous plant population decline, but the press releases and subsequent news reports all came to this errant conclusion. This is the primary reason I don't trust press releases - it's much better to go to the original paper and summarize the content. Beyond that, you must be more careful when summarizing sources. Many of the phrases from your contributions to this article came directly from the sources you cited. You can't just rearrange phrases and use synonyms as this is still copyright infringement or plagiarism; it's imperative that you write in your own words. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The confusion was apparently over the name of the journal; the research has been published in the Journal of Experimental Botany, here: -- Chefallen (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Habitats?
"The final carnivore with a pitfall-like trap is the bromeliad Brocchinia reducta. Like most relatives of the pineapple, the tightly-packed, waxy leaf bases of the strap-like leaves of this species form an urn. In most bromeliads, water collects readily in this urn and may provide habitats for frogs, insects and, more useful for the plant, diazotrophic (nitrogen-fixing) bacteria."

Habitats?? That implies they live there, in some sort of symbiosis. If the plant eats frogs and insects, then I think "habitats" would be inappropriate. I left it, so others can edit it. Thanks 99.9.112.31 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)NotWillDecker


 * Don't know if you added this before the last sentence, but basically this is saying "In most bromeliads, this is a habitat. In this one, it's an insect trap."  Tamtrible (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomato
As the tomato plant is known to "trap" flies and other insects to utilize from their nutrients, does that make them carnivorous and therefore worth mentioning in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.37.178 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

leaves which eat animals UNDER the soil
A new discovery. Could someone who knows more incorporate this? Malick78 (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Plants in amber
Should the recent discovery of carnivorous plants found in amber be included in the evolution section?(see: http://intl.pnas.org/content/112/1/190 and http://phys.org/news/2014-12-ancient-carnivorous-baltic-amber.html)  Mikepellerin  talk 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Brambles are carnivorous?
I stumbled upon youtube video id RuzLXxbGc4c and sought to find information on wikipedia regarding whether or not brambles are or are not carnivorous. Jasonkhanlar (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it :) . The video makes a case that blackberry thorns point inwards, snagging large prey and trapping it. Particularly sheep, as the case happens, but any long-haired mammal could become trapped and in cooler areas, there's plenty of species of those. Compare this to - say - cacti, whose thorns point outward and are purely defensive. If the blackberry does indeed benefit from the nutrients in animals that die from thirst and exposure while trapped, then it's carnivorous by the definition here. I wonder if certain plants that have edible-looking but poisonous fruit might also qualify. Paul Murray (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have a taxonomy tree, even a crude one
There's the list, but it would be *really* nice to have at least a vague visual taxonomy tree showing which carnivorous taxa are very/slightly/not very related. And what *else* (that's familiar) they're closely related to.

Any clever soul up to the task? Tamtrible (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This would probably be in addition to the list, probably just showing the families, unless someone wants to get really clever. eg. something kind of like this:

Only, you know, including all of the clades, not just the first few. And maybe, if someone wants to be extra thorough, showing the relationships between the assorted orders, if they're known. Tamtrible (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding rain drops as a trigger
It is stated in the current text that the timing mechanism helps ensure that the trap is not triggered by rain. However, two drops may easily hit within 30 seconds in heavy rain, so this is not really adding up logically.

I expect that the direction or the consistency of the trigger may play a role so that a liquid trigger is less effective.

The timing mechanism helps, but it does not explain why most traps remain open in heavy rain. Aecur (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Any reason why this isn't a good article yet?
I read through the article and I think it meets most of the criteria for a good article, but I am new to this sort of thing so please don't make fun of me if I got something wrong. That said, is there something I missed or can someone nominate this for a good article? (I might have missed a lack of citations or something) TypoEater (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)