Talk:Evolutionary history of plants

Untitled
I have created this article as a stub. It greatly needs attention of a biologist or evolutionary expert. Nimur 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Move
The page has been moved by User:Curtis Clark to a more descriptive title of the actual content. However, please feel free to contribute "such things as plant speciation and population genetics" - which are relevant to the topic as a whole. Nimur 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant Definition

 * Section renamed from "Suggestion" to a descriptive heading.

The article needs a more explicit definition of "plant": does it include cyanobacteria (as older classifications did), does it include green algae (which some current classifications do and some don't), or is it limited to land plants? Discussing the changing definitions of the term could be informative here as they are directly related to how things that have been called "plants" are related in an evolutionary sense, with modern classifications generally taking a much narrower (and explicitly phylogenetic) view. MrDarwin 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My recommendation is to include "proto-plants" such as protists, green algae, and cyanobacteria if they are relevant to the eventual development and speciation of modern plants. This will definitely assist in the historical perspective of cellular structures and biochemical processes.  Furthermore, I do not think there are separate articles for the evolution of these proto-plant-like organisms.  We can create a separate sub-article with discussion of this topic and any debates or concerns about classification.  Nimur 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I created Evolutionary history of plants to discuss this section. Please contribute!  Nimur 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a clear definition of Plant in the article. Was there one originally?? Most people exclude algae from plants, and defiinitely blue-greens. The latter are not even eukaryotes for heaven's sake! In the minds of most biologists land plants equate to embryophytes, in other words autotrophic organisms in which the zygote and early sporophyte are nurtured by the tissues of the gametophyte.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Plants" are defined in the Plant article. Defining them again in every article about plants would be a needless repetition of information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also in discussing the evolutionary history of plants, it's not sensible to start at some arbitrary point, which embryophytes would be. Even in the evolutionary history of land plants it's not (as far as I know) currently established whether the first non-algal land plants were embryophytes or some precursor. On the other hand, as I've written more than once on this page, the article is too long and tries to cover too much ground. An overview article plus separate more detailed articles would make it easier to understand the evolutionary history of specific groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article organization
I think this article is organized wrong. It should go by major evolutioniary innovations, photosynthesis, chloroplast, multicellular organisms, the move to land from fresh water, bryophyte like plants and spores, vascular tissue, wood, leaves, seeds, flowers. It's hard to write like this, and it just doesn't work well with how the evolutionary history of plants is studied. Does anyone object? Is anyone particularly wedded to the existing structure? I could write a different article about the history of evolutionary innovations that lead to the colonization and dominance of terrestial ecosystems by plants, I suppose. KP Botany 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to re-organize in whatever way necessary. I will do my best to assist in an editorial role, but I am not an expert in the subject-matter, so I will defer to authoritative reputable sources in all cases.  Nimur 05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that my original intention was to discuss the development of these plant features, rather than a chronological history of plants during each period. We should try to maintain the useful content while reorganizing to emphasize structural and biochemical developments. Nimur 06:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution. I hope this isn't too controversial!  Verisimilus  T  17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What? You hope that removing all the content from the page won't be controversial?  Removing all the content is usually considered vandalism, even if you post an "Under revision" template.  I have put the content back.  Your move was not only done without discussion but violated the GFDL for removing the edit histories of all contributors to the page.  I have recommended merging Timeline of plant evolution here, since this is the established article, and no justification for changing the name of the article has been made.   --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the current content to "Timeline of plant evolution", and will gradually update this article to a consideration of the broader themes in plant evolution. Verisimilus  T  17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The move is a violation of the GFDL. If you want to rename an article, please discuss the new name first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Verisimilus  T  17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful review papers...
I intend to eventually have some input into this page, but may be a while about it. In the meantime, this paper is a useful review which could be very productively incorporated; drop me an e-mail if you're unable to access it and I'll let you in. Verisimilus  T  17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

predominant aspects
The intro names three predominant aspects. Such prioritization is necessarily subjective. --Etxrge (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plant evolution
Evolution is inherently a historical process. Therefore the word history is redundant in the present title. I therefore suggest that the name is changed to plant evolution.

For almost all of its history this article has had the internal name plant evolution and the external name evolutionary history of plants. I believe such a discrepancy is incorrect. When amending this problem I chose the name I found better, plant evolution. Encyclopetey found this action rude, see my discussion page, and chose the other name. I cannot see why it is rude to change the external name and OK to change the internal name (and the external name at the same time). I removed a discrepancy and had to make a choice to do this. Encyclopetey acted only to influence the choice. --Etxrge (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion at least, the explanation you provided in your edit summary was quite sufficient to justify the move. Well done for being bold!  Verisimilus  T  11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Lead section, which says in part:
 * "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface:"
 * In other words, the "discrepancy" is acceptable under Wikipedia convention and policies; your move based solely on an internal title was not required, despite your personal feelings. Further the article itself is not about Plant evolution, but about the appearance and spread of specific groups.  Evolution is a much broader subject and is not really covered in the article.  The article covers no processes, genetic changes, morphological transformations, evolutionary relationships, or any of the other issues normally associated with Plant evolution as a field of study.  Worse, moving a high-importance article for WP:PLANTS breaks numerous links (or requires a redirect for all of them).  Such a change really should be discussed before being made.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the first poster in this topic: the "history" in the title is redundant, makes the article title unnecessarily long, and is inconsistent with other Wikipedia article titles such as "evolution of mammals", "evolution of cetaceans", "evolution of dinosaurs," etc. I am therefore performing the move. —Lowellian (reply) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hi,

As per the cleanup tag on the article, I've had a little project running for a while to re-write this article to address the topic "The evolutionary history of plants". The pre-existing article, for what it's worth, is forked at Timeline of plant evolution, an article which I hope to focus my attention onto at a later point - so no contributions have been lost as a result of this re-write. I hope you'll find my article an improvement; I accept that it could still use some honing and re-wording in places, and I hope that the input of others will make it read a little more smoothly. I have, however, spent a considerable amount of time researching, structuring and formulating this article, so I would appreciate it if any major edits were discussed here before being implemented.

Thanks,

Smith609  Talk  19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a vast improvement on the article. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"grades"
What's a grade and why is the word so tentative that it is in quotes? Can't you use a word that doesn't have to be in quotes. It's as if the opening sentence is about saying something you're not sure of. An unfortunate start to an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Grade does mean something in evolutionary biology, but it means something different from what you are using. So it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't a good alternative for "grade"; it is a particular form of organization that is typically considered intermediary between a "primitive" and an "advanced" form. This terminology has fallen out of favor, but the concept of a "grade" is still used in paleobotanical literature where rleationships between groups are not always known.  The word is in quotes because that is now standard for groupings that are paraphyletic, which is often true of evolutionary "grades".  --02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)


 * Exactly - the term implies have an equivalent level of complexity without making implications about relationships. I'll replace the redirect at Evolutionary grade with a better definition, which can be wikilinked from this article.  Any suggestions for suitable references, EncyloPetey? Smith609  Talk  07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not an easy thing to find. Most authors use the term with the assumption that the reader will understand.  I could find nothing useful for explanation in the published literature I have at hand, but did find a definition of grade at UCMP in Nan Arens' Virtual Paleobotany Lab .  It does not describe the typographic convention, but does at least provide a definition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Terms that are used with the assumption the reader will understand them are found in dictionaries, too. Both grade and clade are found in taxonomic glossaries and textbooks.  The question is, do you mean a grade or a clade with the introductory sentence--plants overall as a clade, individual groups as grades, tied together somehow?  It seems not useful that an article on the evolutionary history of plants should begin with a discussion of grades.  The first sentence is odd and not compelling in the least.  I'm not sure what is meant by it, other than I'm pretty sure the introductory sentence to this article should be discussing clades rather than grades.  Nan hasn't been at Cal for years, so something more current would be nice.  --207.62.177.227 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging by the comments here, it's probably best to avoid the term "grade" in the first sentence - so I've reworded it. I hope that makes it clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith609 (talk • contribs)

According to evolutionary theory
This was a strange reversion commentary. Isn't that what the article is about, the "evolutionary history of plants" according to "evolutionary theory?" I think I've fallen into Bizarro Wikipedia lately.

I'm not sure it belongs in the lead sentence or even the first paragraph, but this did not need to be reverted with a full on dismissal of "evolutionary theory" as opposed to the "factual" accuracy of this article. Both this article and evolutionary theory are based on facts, that fossils exist, that genes and environment are the source of variation. If this was a fringe theory attempt to introduce something adding "Evolutionary Theory" to the lead paragraph is hardly the way to do it. It seemed like a good faith edit to add an important point to the article. A reversion followed by a discussion of the appropriate place for linking to evolutionary theory in general (if it's not already linked, which seems unlikely) would have been more appropriate than such a strange dismissal of the very basis of the article. --Blechnic (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, perhaps my edit summary was unhelpful.  The comment read to me as if it had been added by a creationist with the intention of casting doubt on the article.  I'd be willing to accept "according to the fossil record", or "according to all available evidence", but "according to evolutionary theory" seems implies that there is an alternative theory out there.  I've yet to come across one! (not including beliefs as theories). Smith609  Talk  07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no alternative, good or otherwise, but that doesn't mean what we're discussing isn't according to evolutionary theory. If creationists are out there linking to evolutionary theory in articles about the evolutionary history of organisms, let them!  But I think it was just a reminder that this article should link early on to that theory, because that is the solid basis for this article.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic Sentence

 * All multicellular plants have a life cycle comprising two phases (often confusingly referred to as "generations").

This is a confusing statement. Its interpretation depends on what you take to mean "plant." Sensu Plant, "plant" is taken to mean land plants + green algae which is a common circumscription. But then there are multicellular plants without alternation of generations (Chara, for instance, has zygotic meiosis). If we take "plant" to mean just the land plants, then "multicellular" is redundant. Did the original source word it this way?--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment
This is a good read. But I am surprised that the "evolution of flowers" bit makes no mention of co-evolution with pollinators. Hesperian 05:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph
I really do find the first paragraph somewhat problematic. As it's written, it seems to support the view of "evolution as a progression" from 'simple' to 'complex'. This is a widespread misconception which is specifically addressed at List_of_misconceptions. Somehow it needs to be made clear that although more complex grades have evolved successively, this does not mean that every species is more 'advanced' or 'complex' than its ancestors. Parasitism, for example, has reduced complexity in plants like Rafflesia. The genus Cynomorium is hard to place partly because its morphology is so reduced, but this isn't a sign of a 'primitive' plant. Also, as noted later in the article, the modern view is that angiosperms and gymnosperms are sister groups, so it's even more misleading to write "through ... gymnosperms to the complex angiosperms of today".

Below is a suggested re-write. Comments please!

The evolution of plants has resulted in (NOT "occurred through") increasing levels of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods and ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today. While groups which evolved earlier (NOT "simple plants") continue to thrive, especially in the environments in which they originated, each new grade of organisation has eventually become more "successful" than its predecessors by most measures. Further, most cladistic analyses, where they agree, suggest that each "more complex" group arose from the most complex group at the time.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the whole first paragraph really should be rewritten or just taken out, I don't see the point in bring up complexity at all. A simple sentence describing of the evolutionary history of plants would be fine. Some thing like, "From single celled algae the vast area of plant life emerged."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.217.128.118 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As there was only this one comment, I've made the change I suggested in April. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peter coxhead, the first paragraph is problematic. I suggest that the references to complexity and organization are subjective, debatable and not really the point. I would like to work on this article and am happy to discuss any changes. If people do not like, feel free to revert and we can discuss. Michaplot (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI 10.1086/36839 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why nothing about aquatic plants
Why does this article say nothing about aquatic plants (e.g. red algae, see Evolutionary history of life)? I would expect that these evolved before land plants. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to use the cladogram at Evolutionary history of life which shows that fungi and animals are fairly close but plants and related taxa are in a different branch of the eukaryotes. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template problem
The template Ma is being used to specify a date (for C4 plants) of 6-7 mya, and links to the correct timeline display, but formats the text in this page as -1, giving the result "Miocene, -1 million" Lavateraguy (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Metabolism
The article claims "The most recent major innovation by the plants is the development of the C4 metabolic pathway." with no citation. I strongly doubt this statement to be true. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the absolutes. OK? --Ettrig (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about now?
This article used to be about the evolutionary history of plants. It now seems to be full of plant anatomy, morphology, physiology, chemistry, etc. with brief discussions/mentions of evolution. As examples, see Evolutionary_history_of_plants and Evolutionary_history_of_plants. The article is also FAR too long, and needs to be split up. It's impossible for editors collectively to maintain articles of the current size and complexity. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be an article under the original title which covers precisely that topic, namely the evolutionary history of plants.
 * There can usefully be extra articles on e.g. "Evolution of flowers", "Evolution of leaves", etc.


 * I must both agree and admit that I am to a large part responsible. I added the content from Plant evolutionary developmental biology. I still hold that the merge was well motivated. But much of the material is not about evolution at all. That material should be moved to other articles. --Ettrig (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Duplicating content from one article to another is never a great idea. It means that two articles must be kept updated.  The added material was also on an entriely different aspect of plant evo-devo, which was not present in the article before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, per consensus here that this move would not be the best way forward. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of plants → Plant evolution — This article name points out a subtopic of plant evolution but contains a rather broad description of plant evolution. The article plant evolution on the other hand, is a rather poorly written stub. --Ettrig (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article was assembled by taking an existing article and pasting in several sections from another article on a different subject. The mish-mash should not be moved to the new location, as this is not (and never was) a general article on the subject of plant evolution.  This is an article about patterns in the fossil record.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fossil patterns is only a very personal view that should be disregarded. Spreading stuff on several articles on sub-topics while leaving the general topic a stub, is not in the interest of the reader. Combining the two articles did not only create an article with better overview. It also makes it easier to see what improvements are most needed. never was is untrue. Twice before has this article been moved to plant evolution. That statement shows a proprietary view by EncycloPetey. It shows that they think only their view counts, should be disregarded. The use of value laden word like mish-mash is not good style in a Wikipedia discussion. --Ettrig (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to hold any point of view, but should not proceed in the absence of consensus. I have been asking for additional imput form WP:PLANTS, and the only response I have gotten so far agrees with me about the heterogeneous (mish-mash) result of your copy-and-paste.  If you are concerned about value-laden words, then we can say "heterogeneous", but the essential meaning is the same.  I prefer "mish-mash" because it also conveys my opinion, which is important and valid even if you dismiss it with semantic arguments.  You are correct that this article has been located at "Plant evolution" in the past, but that does not mean that the article's content was that of a general article.  It was precisely because the article was not a general article that the content was moved here; your statements in this regard are thus misleading.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Spreading stuff on several articles on sub-topics while leaving the general topic a stub, is not in the interest of the reader." This is partisan way of describing the way most large topics are organized in Wikipedia. I believe strongly that the readers' interests are best served by a hierarchy of articles. In the area under discussion, a general (not a "stub") overview of plant evolution in one article can then be supported by more detailed articles on, for instance, (a) the history of plant evolution, which concentrates on the time dimension (b) the evolution of major functional systems, e.g. leaves, roots, genetic control of development, etc. (c) the evolution of major clades. It's just silly to attempt to cover the whole of a topic as large as 'plant evolution' in a single article.
 * I'm aware, of course, that splitting like this requires some repetition at least at the level of summary. But this is an inherent part of the organization of an encyclopedia rather than a textbook. An encyclopedia consists of relatively short articles on specific topics. Thus we rightly don't attempt to cover all the species of an important genus in one article, or all the genera of one family in one article, etc., even though separate articles necessarily require repetition of some key features of the group which wouldn't be needed in a monograph on the genus or family. But we're not writing monographs, we're writing encyclopedia articles. My inclination is to revert this article back to how it was before all the extra material was added, and then start again. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This response would be reasonable if we had such a hierarchy. The fact is that we had two enormous leaves and almost no root. The most important part of the hierarchy is missing. We have stuff that can fill that role. This should be the first step in creating that hierarchy. --Ettrig (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that the situation as it was before you began merging content wasn't right. If you are saying that after creating one enormous article you will then split it up into a sensible hierarchy of smaller articles, I would say that I think:
 * This is really what you should have done in the first place (after seeking consensus).
 * If you are going to do the split, you don't need the article moved first. (Although provided that you really are going to split it up afterwards, the move would be less harmful as it would only be temporary.)
 * If you are not going to do the split, then I think that at some point in the future other editors will have to, and a move will not make their task easier, so should be opposed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Polyploidy
I think the following statement about the effects of polyploidy requires more explanation: This allows relatively fast bursts of evolution to occur. How does polyploidy speed up evolution? Is it because half of the genes are freed to take up new functions or is it because the polyploid variant is reproductively isolated creating more species? This is what I came to think of. Maybe there are many more possibilities. We should tell the reader about how this works. --Ettrig (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we should not tell the reader how this works. We should tell the reader how a referenced source says that this works. What you (or I or any other editor) thought is not relevant. I'm pretty sure I've read both explanations in the past; find referenced sources and summarize what they say. This is an ideal topic for the general Plant evolution article, because the regular occurrence of polyploidy is something that distinguishes the evolution of plants from that of animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The contentious (?) tone of this response is a mystery to me. I agree fully with the factual content. --Ettrig (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't intending to be contentious. Apologies if it came over this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)



Hmm,... there already is section on polyploidy here... So I will bring it here. I wanted to bring the picture to the talk page and to the attention anyway. I wanted to notify myself (as task for future reference) or anyone else, that there is already interesting picture:  with WGDs/polyploidies denoted. As mentioned in Proost et al 2011 and elsewhere, whole genome duplication have profound impact on evolution and development of plant body plan, so I thought it may become useful to have it here in one on eyes for some day.

Of course the usability might increase if some of us would crop it to plants only (potentially, lower plants and Streptophytes might be included on the other hand). Proost might become suitable reference for the possible update of the image too, if needed :) R e o + 15:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Water transport balance
The article says Plants were then faced with a balance, between transporting water as efficiently as possible and preventing transporting vessels to implode and cavitate. This assumes there is a conflict between the two. I find this conflict far from obvious. Could someone explain why efficient water transport would cause a risk of cavitation? --Ettrig (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This section, along with a lot of the rest of the article, is nonsensical. I am not sure what the author was getting at, but the problem for plants without lignified tissues is that aridity or larger size creates enough tension in the tubes that they can collapse. Until the xylem became lignified, plants stayed small and avoided very dry conditions. I suppose the balance the article is talking about is that plants "needed" to transport water under higher tensions and if they did not evolve lignin, they would risk collapse or cavitation.Michaplot (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging images and splitting articles
I realized that many of the images in the article are not placed next to the relevant text. I'm going to modify the placement of some images in the coming days, unless anyone strongly feels otherwise. Also I agree with the discussion here that the article is rather too long and needs to be split up. The previous Plant evolutionary developmental biology article was written with a largely molecular perspective while this had a more of paleobotanic perspective. Because of the haphazard merging, the flow between different paragraphs is quite choppy. I think the two articles need to be kept separate and tightened up. Veryhuman (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccessible formulations in paragraph Seeds
Heterosporic organisms, as their name suggests, bear spores of two sizes – microspores and megaspores. These would germinate to form microgametophytes and megagametophytes, respectively. This system paved the way for seeds: taken to the extreme, the megasporangia could bear only a single megaspore tetrad, and to complete the transition to true seeds, three of the megaspores in the original tetrad could be aborted, leaving one megaspore per megasporangium. (NEEDS CLARIFICATION IN REGULAR ENGLISH)

I didn't write this comment, but agree. --Ettrig (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's something odd about the paragraph before as well. "This mode of reproduction restricted early plants to damp environments, moist enough that the sperm could swim to their destination. Therefore, early land plants were constrained to the lowlands, near shores and streams. The development of heterospory freed them from this constraint." I note there's no source for the paragraphy. How did the development of "heterospory" free them from this constraint? The development of pollen freed seed plants from this constraint, but it's a long way from heterospory to pollen. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a false restriction. Many bryophytes are quite happy in arid regions or at high altitude (cloud forests are damp enough, right?)  All that's needed is free water for a short period of the year.  Many bryophytes go dormant during the hot part of the day/year, but after a rain shower will suddenly "come to life". Others survive the dry spell as spores that quickly germinate when water becomes available.  The old idea about water restrictions is antiquated and over-stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the paragraph is unsourced and, we agree, wrong in at least three respects (water for sperm to swim is not the same as damp environments; damp environments are not the same as lowlands near shores and streams; the need for water for sperm to swim was not removed by heterospory per se), I will remove it now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The ideas in the offending paragraph "sound" a bit like those of Algeo & Sheckler who state "Early land plants had a pteridophytic reproductive mode, i.e. free-living gametophytes grew from dispersed spores which had encountered moist soil, and produced motile sperm that swam in moisture films over plant or soil surfaces to egg-bearing archegonia of the same or other gametophytes. They were thereby constrained to moist habitats." Algeo & Scheckler (1998) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353, 113-130. Extant plants of bryophytic mode show adaptations, such as poikilohydry, which get round this, but had these adaptations evolved at the transition to land? Plantsurfer (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One problem is that evidence from spores and microfossils suggests that liverwort-like plants were present in the Late Ordovician, but no macrofossils are known so details of their anatomy are conjectural. Cooksonia species are among the first fossils known which are large enough for some anatomical details to be known (although even here there is considerable controversy), but these are far too late to say much about the initial adaptation to land. My conclusion from reading the literature is that researchers have become more cautious about reconstructing the sequence of very early land plant evolution as the fossil record has increased and become more complicated. Gensel's review – – is a better source than a 1998 paper.
 * A second problem is that most late Silurian/early Devonian formations with adequately preserved plant fossils are marine deposits (and anyway dating generally depends on marine fossils such as brachiopods). So coastal and estuary habitats are likely to be massively over-represented. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, more generally, the article needs a great deal of copy-editing to make it accessible to a general reader. At present many parts of it need detailed botanical knowledge to even begin to understand them (as an example the phrase "haplontic life cycle" appeared quite unexplained; I've just attempted to expand it a little). But this would make the article even longer, since mostly what is needed is more explanation of specialist terms. The sheer length of the article does put me off working on it. I thought that Ettrig was going to split it up (see discussion above). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Runcaria
This is taken from the Transitional fossil article. It might be useful to include in this article. However I have no idea where to put it. A middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. Runcaria, small and radially symmetrical, is an integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the mutlilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed. Runcaria has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solid seed coat and a system to guide the pollen to the seed.

That may be too specific a piece of information to add here, but work certainly work in the Seed plant article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started a stub article on it to house the text as well. Will be expanding it in the next few days as well. Seems to be quite an important subject that still has no article.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wood not for structure?
The following sentence was added by User:69.90.2.114:
 * "The wood did not serve a structural role; conteporaneous [sic] trees have woody roots but not a woody stem."

Referenced to:

I do not have access to the paper so I can't look into it for clarification. In the meantime, I can not, for the life of me comprehend the context or meaning of the sentence. 69.90.2.114, do you mean Wattieza, the earliest woody ferns in general, or the earliest woody plants all in all? How does that sentence relate to the previous sentence? Indeed it looks completely contradictory.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Genome duplication
A common (sort of) and important process in plant evolution is when there arises a variant of a species that has double the number of chromosomes compared to the mother species. New species arise in this way. I thought this was called "chromosome duplication" or "genome duplication", but find that in this article it is called "polyploidy". In my view polyploidy is a result of the process but not the process in itself. Evolution is the things that happen. These duplications happen now and then and the results have far-reaching and interesting effects. "Polyploidy" does not denote what happened but the outcome of what happened. What is the proper term for this process of duplicating the whole genome? I think we should have an article about it? --Ettrig (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but how does that pertain to the content of this article? Why did you post that question here?  This talk page is for discussing its associated article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to change the following passage: Polyploidy is a very common feature in plants. It is believed that at least half (and probably all) plants are or have been polyploids. Polyploidy leads to genome doubling, thus generating functional redundancy in most genes. The duplicated genes may attain new function, either by changes in expression pattern or changes in activity. Polyploidy and gene duplication are believed to be among the most powerful forces in evolution of plant form. It is not known though, why genome doubling is such a frequent process in plants. --Ettrig (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

first water transport tubes
in the Xylem section the article states "The first macrofossils to bear water-transport tubes in situ are the early Devonian pretracheophytes Aglaophyton and Horneophyton". This is not correct. The date of the Aglaophyton and Horneophyton fossils is rather late, latest lower Devonian, but both Cooksonia grade and lycopod fossils are known from the Silurian, as much as 30 million years earlier. Also, what is the meaning of in situ in this sentence. Plantsurfer (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed the sentence to "The earliest macrofossils to bear water-transport tubes are Silurian plants placed in the genus Cooksonia. The early Devonian pretracheophytes Aglaophyton and Horneophyton have structures very similar to the hydroids of modern mosses." It needs a couple of references added. The slight vagueness of "plants placed in the genus Cooksonia" is because this is known to be a paraphyletic group, and some authors have moved species elsewhere.
 * The complication is that phylogenetic analyses all show pretracheophytes like Horneophyton diverging before tracheophytes, yet the fossil record shows the reverse time order. I suspect that what was meant originally is that phylogenetically the earliest plants to bear water-bearing tubes were the pretracheophytes. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now added a ref supporting Cooksonia having water-transport structures. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages
Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk  17:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Support of water
This sentence needs a bit of clarification - "Vascular tissue also facilitated upright growth without the support of water and paved the way for the evolution of larger plants on land." If true, why do vascular plants wilt? Plantsurfer (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the meaning is that the addition of vascular tissue makes the plant more hard and stable so that it can stand up without the support of surrounding water. Indeed, the internal water is part of the structure that provides the stability. When there is a deficiency of such water, the structure is less firm (it wilts). This function is rather like an air mattress, but with water instead of air. The cellulose cell walls are like the compartments of the mattress. Let some air out and the mattress becomes less firm. Hmm, this should be explained in some other article. But it wasn't easy to find. Wilting is very short. --Ettrig (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fungi and the Evolution of Plants
The article waffles on about early plant wicking water along their cell walls, but says nothing at all about the critical importance of their association with arbuscular fungi which without doubt facilitated water and mineral nutrient acquisition in early rootless plants transitioning to land. Then at the end there is an unfocussed and off-topic essay on "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" that says much on fine-detail interactions and process but nothing much on evolutionary history, which is the topic of the article. I propose that this section be radically shortened, and a new section added giving the important story of the association between plants and Glomalean fungi. Plant surfer 23:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to move section "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" to Plant evolution
This article is about evolutionary history, but some of the material in it, in particular the section "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites", is more about evolutionary process and contributes little to understanding of evolutionary history. My personal view is that this section would be a better fit to the article Plant evolution. Would it be acceptable to the editors to move "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" into Plant evolution. Plant surfer 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Plantsurfer, rather given the size of the text I think it could deserve and article by its own. Lappspira (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Evolution Due to other Organisms
The mechanisms and players section of the article does a great job explaining many factors that lead to evolutionary change in plants. However, I feel that it leaves out one important aspect: interaction with other organisms. In plants, a common driver of evolutionary change is fungi. As a specific example, parasitic fungi have been found to cause evolutionary change in plants as plants with greater defenses against the parasite are selected for in a population. The fungal species continues to evolve alongside the plant species in an attempt to gain an advantage over another species. Stephenoff.2 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, the very earliest land plants seem to be strongly associated with fungi, possibly symbiotic, possibly not. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

POV-pusher
Be warned that there's an anonymous editor making edits like this to plant articles, adding references to the "The Flowering Leaf Theory" based on one primary source (in a journal called The Osprey). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Zarsky
Hello I assume a 2021 study does not refer to Žárský which is a 2022 review. I simply want to be certain about the phrasing because a small difference makes a large difference. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)