
#redirect:Factions of the Cosmic Era
* Green algae * Embryophyte (embryophytes) * ''Non-vascular embryophytes'' ** Liverwort - liverworts ** Hornwort - hornworts ** Bryophytes - mosses * Vascular plants (tracheophytes) * ''Seedless vascular plants'' ** Lycopodiophyta - clubmosses ** Equisetophyta - horsetails ** fern - "true" ferns ** whisk fern - whisk ferns ** Ophioglossophyta - adderstongues * ''Spermatophyta (spermatophytes)'' ** †Pteridospermatophyta - seed ferns ** Pinophyta - conifers ** Cycad - cycads ** Ginkgo - ginkgo ** Gnetae - gnetae ** Flowering plant - flowering plants :''A plant may be a manufacturing facility. This article is about the living things.'' ---- Plants are a major group of living things (about 300,000 species), including familiar organisms such as trees, flowers, herbs, and ferns. Aristotle divided all living things between plants, which generally do not move or have sensory organs, and animals. In Carolus Linnaeus' system, these became the kingdom (biology) Vegetabilia (later Plantae) and Animalia. Since then, it has become clear that the Plantae as originally defined included several unrelated groups, and the fungus and several groups of algae were removed to new kingdoms. However, these are still often considered plants in many contexts. Indeed, any attempt to match "plant" with a single taxon is doomed to fail, because plant is a vaguely defined concept unrelated to the presumed phylogenic concepts on which modern taxonomy is based. ==Embryophytes== :''See main article at Embryophytes'' Most familiar are the multicellular land plants, called embryophytes. They include the vascular plants, plants with full systems of leaf, stems, and roots. They also include a few of their close relatives, often called ''bryophytes'', of which mosses are the most common. All of these plants have eukaryote cells with cell walls composed of cellulose, and most obtain their energy through photosynthesis, using light and carbon dioxide to synthesize food. About 300 plant species do not photosynthesize but are parasites on other species of photosynthetic plants. Plants are distinguished from green algae, from which they evolved, by having specialized reproductive organs protected by non-reproductive tissues. Bryophytes first appeared during the early Palaeozoic. They can only survive in moist environments, and remain small throughout their life-cycle. This involves an alternation between two generations: a haploid stage, called the gametophyte, and a diploid stage, called the sporophyte. The sporophyte is short-lived and remains dependent on its parent. Vascular plants first appeared during the Silurian period, and by the Devonian had diversified and spread into many different land environments. They have a number of adaptations that allowed them to overcome the limitations of the bryophytes. These include a cuticle resistant to desiccation, and vascular tissues which transport water throughout the organism. In many the sporophyte acts as a separate individual, while the gametophyte remains small. [[Image:Spermatophyta.png|thumb|320px|left|Phylogeny of the modern Spermatophyta (seed plants) and some allied vascular plant groups. Note that the spore-bearing vascular plants are paraphyletic with respect to the seed plants, with ferns (Pteridophyta) more closely allied to seed plants than they are to clubmosses (Lycopodiophyta)]] The first primitive seed plants, Pteridosperms (seed ferns) and Cordaites, both groups now extinct, appeared in the late Devonian and diversified through the Carboniferous, with further evolution through the Permian and Triassic periods. In these the gametophyte stage is completely reduced, and the sporophyte begins life inside an enclosure called a seed, which develops while on the parent plant, and with fertilisation by means of pollen grains. Whereas other vascular plants, such as ferns, reproduce by means of spores and so need moisture to develop, some seed plants can survive and reproduce in extremely arid conditions. Early seed plants are referred to as gymnosperms (naked seeds), as the seed embryo is not enclosed in a protective structure at pollination, with the pollen landing directly on the embryo. Four surviving groups remain widespread now, particularly the conifers, which are dominant trees in several biomes. The angiosperms, comprising the flowering plants, were the last major group of plants to appear, emerging from within the gymnosperms during the Jurassic and diversifying rapidly during the Cretaceous. These differ in that the seed embryo is enclosed, so the pollen has to grow a tube to penetrate the protective seed coat; they are the predominant group of flora in most biomes today. ==Algae and Fungi== The algae comprise several different groups of organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis. The most conspicuous are the seaweeds, multicellular algae that often closely resemble terrestrial plants, found among the green alga, red alga, and brown algae. These and other algal groups also include various single-celled creatures and forms that are simple collections of cells, without differentiated biological_tissue. Many can move about, and some have even lost their ability to photosynthesize; when first discovered, these were considered as both plants and animals. The embryophytes developed from green algae; the two are collectively referred to as the green plants or Viridaeplantae. The kingdom Plantae is now usually taken to mean this monophyletic group, as shown above. With a few exceptions among the green algae, all such forms have cell walls containing cellulose and chloroplasts containing chlorophylls ''a'' and ''b'', and store food in the form of starch. They undergo closed mitosis without centrioles, and typically have mitochondrion with flat cristae. The chloroplasts of green plants are surrounded by two membranes, suggesting they originated directly from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. The same is true of the red algae, and the two groups are generally believed to have a common origin. In contrast, most other algae have chloroplasts with three or four membranes. They are not in general close relatives of the green plants, acquiring chloroplasts separately from ingested or symbiotic green and red algae. Unlike embryophytes and algae, fungus are not photosynthetic, but are saprophytes: they obtain their food by breaking down and absorbing surrounding materials. Most fungi are formed by microscopic tubes called hyphae, which may or may not be divided into cells but contain eukaryotic cell nucleus. Fruiting bodies, of which mushrooms are the most familiar, are actually only the reproductive structures of fungi. They are not related to any of the photosynthetic groups, but are close relatives of animals. ==Importance== The photosynthesis and carbon fixation conducted by land plants and algae are the ultimate source of energy and organic material in nearly all habitats. These processes also radically changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, which as a result contains a large proportion of oxygen. Animals and most other organisms are aerobic organism, relying on oxygen; those that do not are confined to relatively few, anaerobic environments. Much of human nutrition depends on cereals. Other plants that are eaten include fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices. Some vascular plants, referred to as trees and shrubs, produce woody stems and are an important source of building material. A number of plants are used decoratively, including a variety of flowers. ==Growth== Simple plants like algae may have short life spans as individuals, but their populations are commonly seasonal. Other plants may be organized according to their seasonal growth pattern: * Annual plant: live and reproduce within one growing season. * Biennial plant: live for two growing seasons; usually reproduce in second year. * Perennial plant: live for many growing seasons; continue to reproduce once mature. Among the vascular plants, perennials include both evergreens that keep their leaves the entire year, and deciduous plants which lose their leaves for some part. In temperate and boreal climates, they generally lose their leaves during the winter; many tropical plants lose their leaves during the dry season. The growth rate of plants is extremely variable. Some mosses grow less than 1 μm/h, while most trees grow 25-250 μm/h. Some climbing species, such as kudzu, which do not need to produce thick supportive tissue, may grow up to 12500 μm/h. == Fossils == Plant fossils include roots, wood, leaves, seeds, fruit, pollen, spores and amber (the fossilized resin produced by some plants). Fossil land plants are recorded in terrestrial, lacustrine, fluvial and nearshore marine sediments. Pollen, spores and algae (dinoflagellates and acritarchs) are used for dating sedimentary rock sequences. The remains of fossil plants are not as common as fossil animals, although plant fossils are locally abundant in many regions worldwide. Early fossil plants are well known from the Devonian period, including the chert of Rhynie in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. The best preserved examples, from which their cellular construction has been described, have been found at this locality. The preservation is so perfect that sections of these ancient plants show the individual cells within the plant tissue. The Devonian period also saw the evolution of what many believe to be the first modern tree, ''Archaeopteris''. This fern-like tree combined a woody trunk with the fronds of a fern, but produced no seeds. [[Image:Fossil Plant Ginkgo.jpg|left|thumb|Fossil Ginkgo leaves from the Jurassic of England]] The Coal Measures are a major source of Palaeozoic plant fossils, with many groups of plants in existence at this time. The spoil heaps of coal mines are the best places to collect; coal itself is the remains of fossilised plants, though structural detail of the plant fossils is rarely visible in coal. In the Fossil Forest at Victoria Park in Glasgow, Scotland, the stumps of ''Lepidodendron'' trees are found in their original growth positions. The fossilized remains of conifer and angiosperm roots, stems and branches may be locally abundant in lake and inshore sedimentary rocks from the Mesozoic and Caenozoic eras. Coast Redwood and its allies, magnolia, oak, and Arecaceae are often found. Petrified wood is common in some parts of the world, and is most frequently found in arid or desert areas were it is more readily exposed by erosion. Petrified wood is often heavily silicified (the organic material replaced by silicon dioxide), and the impregnated tissue is often preserved in fine detail. Such specimens may be cut and polished using lapidary equipment. Fossil forests of petrified wood have been found in all continents. Fossils of seed ferns such as ''Glossopteris'' are widely distributed throughout several continents of the southern hemisphere, a fact that gave support to Alfred Wegener's early ideas regarding Continental drift theory. ==References and further reading== *Thomas N Taylor and Edith L Taylor. ''The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants''. Prentice Hall, 1993. ==See also== * Biosphere * Botany * Garden * Flower * Forest * Fruit * Plant cell * Phytophilia (love of plants) * Prehistoric plants * Tree * Vegetable * Vegetation Structure ==External links== * [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Green_plants&contgroup=Eukaryotes Tree of Life] * Chaw, S.-M. et al. [http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1997/1401/7chaw.pdf Molecular Phylogeny of Extant Gymnosperms and Seed Plant Evolution: Analysis of Nuclear 18s rRNA Sequences (pdf file)] ''Molec. Biol. Evol''. 14 (1): 56-68. 1997. ===Botanical and vegetation databases=== * [http://www.efloras.org/index.aspx e-Floras (Flora of China, Flora of North America and others)] * [http://plants.usda.gov/ United States of America] * [http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html Flora Europaea] * [http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/databases/ Australia] * [http://davesgarden.com/pdb/ 'Dave's Garden' horticultural plant database] Plants ms:Tumbuhan zh-min-nan:Si̍t-bu̍t fur:Plantis ga:Planda la:Planta nah:Kilitl nds:Plant simple:Plant vi:Thực vật bn:উদ্ভিদ th:พืช
''Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification'' Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) --User:Maveric149 :Actually, plant nutrition is a two-way street. The photosynthetic formula is that the plant absorbs carbon dioxide and water, and uses sunlight to drive a chemical process that makes sugar and oxygen from them. Human beings do just the opposite -- they take in the sugar and oxygen, reverse the reaction to release energy, and exude water and carbon dioxide. However, plants also absorb nutrients through the roots along with water, and send these throughout the plant's structure. The xylem conducts water and minerals up, the phloem conducts the sugars down. User:Jaknouse 23:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular? : Moved to flowering plant. -User:Menchi 05:30 26 May 2003 (UTC) :Sorry, I moved it back, but now I agree (after reading these comments) it does not belong here. I'll fix. I see there has been a fair bit of discussion about what to include and what not to include on this page. I'm looking things over and I'm inclined to move the taxonomy stuff back to the Redirect Plantae where it was originally developed as that makes perfect sense botanically. This is a constant problem in natural sciences. There is a "public" perception of what something (like "plant") is, and we tend to want to match that with the article name. But the truth is, these things have been worked out by botanists in ways not necessarily compatible with the common perceptions and we get into trouble trying to satisfy conflicting POVs. I'm sure whoever moved the stuff into Plant was not aware of the conflict that creates because we all think we know what a ''plant'' is — how hard can it be to define? But as someone points out and Menchi fixes, the classification of growth does not apply to all plants, and cannot be represented as such. Leaving it here just reinforces the narrow perception that plants are really things like ferns and flowers. I'll work on this problem for awhile. I am cognizant of a need to keep the "public" or common POV right up front. - User:Marshman 05:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ------ ''Some stuff moved from botany.'' == Material to be moved out == ''This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany'' The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted). * Hepatophyta, liverworts * Anthocerophyta, hornworts * Bryophyta, mosses * Lycophyta, club mosses * Psilotophyta, whisk ferns * Sphenophyta, horsetails * Pterophyta, ferns * Cycadophyta, cycads * Ginkgophyta, ginkgo * Gnetophyta * Pinophyta, conifers * Flowering_plant, flowering plants ** Liliopsida, monocots ** Magnoliopsida, dicots == I have pictures == I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia User:Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC) :To be useful, most (but not all) should have a clear image of the flower. Ecceptions might be those with very distinctive foliage or pictures of individual trees. However, even in the latter cases, an image of the flower would usually be required to begin identification. Assuming you have pictures of flowers, you could post them at Flower_album and see if others can identify. That gets them on Wikipedia with your name and notes for others to place in articles as appropriate -- User:Marshman 17:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Okay I can do that but what name to give pic1 pic2 etc? Can the names be changed once uploaded and Identified? -- Belizian :: No, they are permanent. But the names of the files are the least of our problem. Do not worry. We will just re-upload with the correct names once we find them out. The image is the important part, because they are not easy to get. So, in the mean time, just say "Star-leaved plant 27.JPG" or something descriptive is ok. --User:Menchi 01:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::I agree. Be sure to fill in info about the picture on the photo document page. Include photographer credit, date taken, location, etc. info that you can. Then if we move the pictures to new names, we will be able to retain all the important source information at the new name place (so the name itself is really unimportant) - User:Marshman 01:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Green_plants&contgroup=Eukaryotes]. User:AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC) :Sounds like a good idea to me. If you look at Wikibooks, and find the biology textbook (also somne xchapters of Invert Zoology), you will see something similar to what you suggest that I made for those articles - User:Marshman 19:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms. What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a ''brief'' introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure. If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- user:Josh Grosse :Go ahead and write that intro paragraph you think is needed. I do not think it will help completely as long as we have the big section on Kingdom Plantae taxonomy to deal with at the end. I tried to split that out to Kingdom Plantae a while back, but ran into a person that did not want to discuss, just revert, so I gave up. I think the taxonomy IS a bit intimidating and should go where those really interested can enjoy it. Your suggestion may be a better way to arrange the plant page, I really cannot tell without seeing it first. However, I do NOT think there is any concensus about what "plant" means, just what Plantae means, so that problem should be dealt with somewhere, presumably up front (?) - User:Marshman 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there ''isn't'' a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- user:Josh Grosse ---- Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - User:Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC) :I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the two sections of the article. The first section, "Difficulties in the Definition", problematizes the definition of "Plant" by exploring the differences between popular definitions of plant and scientific ones. I did think that some of the statements seemed more speculative than factual; how does one know what is not likely ever to happen, or what will always happen? Is it utterly impossible that plant and Plantae might one day mean the same thing? Is it wise to assert that popular and scientific definitions of a thing will always differ? It seemed enough to explain that popular and scientific definitions presently do differ, and why. ::Yes. I tried to split these once upon a time, but ran into opposition. I still think there is as place for both plant and Plantae and it makes a lot more sense to split them (Josh and I had worked out the split, at one time); but another argued that they mean the same thing, and threatened to revert if we split the article. I had no problem with your removal of the speculative part, just the algae "example". :The second section presents a straightforward description of current consensus on the classification and evolution of plants. As defined in this section, it is not inconceivable that one could use "plant" and "Plantae" synonymously. One could understand Wikipedia articles to be an effort to popularize scientific knowledge and usage. ::I think both sections are good; but they are addressing somewhat different aspects. Of course all Plantae are plants. The problem is, that not all plants are Plantae (the definitions are different). It seems to me you will never get anyone to accept that, in seaweeds for example, green algae are plants and red algae are not. One is Plantae but both are either plants or both are not. The problem is inherent in the fact that people don't think in phylogenic terms, but more in absolutes. But I agree with your premise about Wikipedia, I just do not see it working any time soon with the term "plant" and I'm not convinced it is always a good idea to force (or expect) a match between scientific and common terminologies. I find the concept of standardizing "common names" (as ornithologists have done) a bit arrogant. Common names belong to the social fabric, not the scientists. But I still get upset when a bison is shown on TV and it is called a buffalo. Go figure; no one said I had to be consistent ;^). :Not sure why cladistics are irrelevant to a discussion of defining Kingdom Plantae. As the article says, "we must include some reference to the classification system in any scholarly effort to gain or give information about them". Current phylogeny tends to favor monophyletic clades, which certainly bears on what contemporary classification systems would consider to be a useful and defensible definition of Plantae. If the groups described in the second section of the article are found to be monophyletic, then it strengthens the argument for maintaining the current definition; if the taxon is found to by polyphyletic, then multiple clades will come into use. ::Perfectly relevant to the second part on Kingdom Plantae. I think someone moved it down there from where it was floarting in the middle of the "plant" definition section, where it was out of place. I think your additions to the Plantae section have been excellent—well, except maybe the "lichens" part. :With regard to lichens, I introduced the topic with the intent of explaining that lichens are a symbiote between an alga and a fungus, and to describe where the green algal partners fit in the classification system presented in the second section. Alternately, a lichen could be used to illustrate the difficulties of defining "plant". If lichens can appear only one place in the article, I prefer that they appear where I initially placed them, in the section on evolution and classification, so as to de-problematize them to the extent possible. There is of course no reason that they cannot appear in both sections, as an illustration of the difficulties of definition, and further on to explain where the algal partners fit in the plant classification scheme as it is presented in the article. User:Tom Radulovich 03:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC) ::Information I liked. I moved it up and reworded it so it would be an example for the definition section, but then you moved it back down below again (and reworded to better fit there). It does introduce more problems than it solves, however, under Plantae, since lichens really cannot be classified (the partners can individually). I think another party just moved it out to where it would be most appropriate under lichens. Like you said, it could go in all three places and be made appropriate. I was just unclear why you took it out as an example of why "plant" is not easy to define? - User:Marshman 06:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Added ==Plants as fossils== Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web. User:Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. User:Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) === Proposed rewrite === I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are: * The "common POV" Marshman discusses is ''not'' dominant even among popular books, which tend to say that plants produce food through photosynthesis and usually that fungi aren't plants. * There has not been a single concept of the Plantae. Its composition has changed exactly the same way as that of the plants has, and is still not entirely settled. The differing versions of both are best treated as variations on the same idea. * Plants are defined less by characters and more by composition. There is a certain core group that everyone includes, the embryophytes (vascular plants leave out moss), and all the definitions are variations on ''embryophytes and things like them''. Plants don't ''need'' a hard-and-fast definition, and our focus on it seems uniquely inconvenient. * In that vein, the vast majority of links and visitors will be assuming this page discusses that core group. Also, future editors, as Tom and Dlloyd prove. As such, discussing that core group is far more important and maintainable than working through the detailed semantics of which other groups to include, and certainly should not be relegated to the second half of the article. * At the same time, algae and fungi ''are'' often considered plants outside of a taxonomic context, so they should be discussed here. I think a brief overview of their similarities and differences relative to the embryophytes does a better job explaining the varying definitions of plant than attempting a thorough enumeration. It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. User:Josh Grosse 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I did not respond back because in August I was not working on Wikipedia. But I think the changes you made, while not all "bad" by any means, have just opened this page (article) up to continued problems. The whole idea that the term "plant" has some good match with a taxonomic grouping is simply not the case with our present understanding of the relationships among plant-like organisms. Forcing this fit is what makes problems here. Many of your points above simply miss the mark. For example, the first one: I do not say fungi are always treated as plants, but that they were once (and still are) included within the perview of botanists. In the general mind set, that lists them with plants if not plants themelves. I then pointed out why they might not be plants. Your second point is just confusing: The concept of plants has changed exactly the same way as the concept of plants has?. On your third point: what we had was a broad definition; you changed that to no definition, but a good historical statement. On this point we seem to agree, but you actually moved the text in a direction away from it. On expectations of visitors, I disagree. I think visitors are not expecting a core group but a definition and discussion of what a "plant" is, and why it is not something else (like a fungus as you point out). Emphasizing the difficulty of defining "plant" educates a reader that might have thought it was an easy, straight-forward concept. The "core group" should not even be in the article (although discussed and liberally linked), but elsewhere where a taxonomic approach makes sense. That would clear up the future editing problems. The article is a problem because of a (IMHO) silly Wikipedia concept that common terms should be used everywhere for biological entities, which only makes sense if their is a common term that coincides in boundaries with a taxonomic grouping. Get the "core group" off this page and into its own article(s) like Embryophyta, and this page will return to having meaning instead of being just a confusion. Right now it still implies that "plant" and "Plantae" are the same thing. Sorry, one is a common term and the other a taxonomic grouping. They do not coincide. - User:Marshman 17:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for ''rotifers'' and ''Rotifera'' - one is simply a formal version of the other. I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant ''embryophytes and things similar to them'', and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary ''it'' should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it. Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support. That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and ''not'' just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here. Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. User:Josh Grosse 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Do not get me wrong. I do not "dislike" the way you rewrote the page. I just think it misses some critical points. As for the fungi, I agree, not classified as plants, but certainly considered plants through a long history, and therefore requires here an explain or reason why they are no longer so regarded. The problem with any article based on a common term like plants is that readers come in with all kinds of preconceptions. I'm not saying we need to support all those, but we do need to move them gently in the direction of modern concepts. I have a bigger problem with the seaweeds where I think there is no easy reconciliation. Either seaweeds are plants or they are not. The present situation is that "some of them are". :Someone added some interesting points to the Talk:Flowering plant page with a link to [http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/overview.html] which shows this system of plant classification that makes more sense to me than what we presently are following: *Living Organisms (clade Biota) *Eukaryotes (clade Eucarya), i.e. possess a membrane bounded cell nucleus *Plants (clade Plantae), i.e. possess chloroplasts *Green plants (clade Viridiplantae) (''This article should end here or one level up IMHO'') *Embryophytes or land plants (clade Embryophyta) *Vascular plants (clade Tracheophyta), i.e. possess tracheids : - User:Marshman 17:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? User:Josh Grosse 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I do not know exactly what the authors meant sensu Plantae regarding chloroplasts. But having that level within Eukaryoytes obviously means there is at least one other group (Prokaryotes) with members that have chloroplasts not in their clade Plantae. I find other subdivisions of chloroplast bearing Eukaryotes a bit specualtive as to when they spilt off and how many endosymbionic events are represented, even though it is firmly established that all higher plants represent only one such evolutionary line (their Viridiplantae). Whether the latter "correspond better with the general concept of plants" indicates you are still trying to match the taxonimic or cladistic approaches to the common term "plant"; and that is where I think things go wrong. Because of historic inclusion of fungi; because of inclusion of all "algae" including some cyanobacteria, in the common sense of "plant" one simply cannot match the term "plant" to a logical scientific concept. Why try to force that fit by saying "plants" are really just "Viridiplantae" or just "Embryophyta"? I say, give the broadest possible definition (sense) of what plants are and then, by reasoning and evidence, show why scientists now regard the true plants to be just a subset of that group. "Plant" is not a common term subject to manipulation and redefining by scientists. "Plants" is plants, and to most people, that includes more than just the "true plants" and more than the "land plants" even though these are the groupings we would agree most people typically refer to as plants. :Of course, this approach requires more than just mentioning embryophtes. It includes all that you say above. What I think we "delete" is just the taxonoic treatment of these higher groups. If you look at the article as I last left it before August, it had a terminating list of links after the "plant definition" section with provided links to all the various groups mentioned. The article should end after that list. All the taxonomy on "true" plants should be moved to articles on Viridiplantae and/or Embryophyta. That way, persons interested in the scientific approach get off on a track that follows current thinking regarding taxonomy and evolution. Persons who still regard mushrooms as a plant form learn first why this may not be a good conceptual approach, but are provided links to the articles on fungi and mushrooms if that be their primary interest. To put another way: a person could be interested in seaweeds and could start at "plants" as a logical entry point. They would find out why all seaweeds might not be true plants, but then find links to the algae and seaweeds to persue their initial primary interest. - User:Marshman 17:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate. :Discussion of course. Such discussion is essential to an article named "plants" and I certainly did not mean anything like a disambiguation page. I meant end article after the discussion and links, but the discussion should be lengthy and thorough. This is an article on the term "plant" - User:Marshman ::''No!'' This is supposed to be an article about plants, not simply the term. It should be as important, if not more, to explain important aspects of the organisms generally considered plants as it is to explain why certain other groups might or might not be classified with them. In depth systematics of subgroups, among which the embryophytes can now reasonably be counted, should of course go elsewhere but important characteristics, notes about ecology, and things like the fossil section are all entirely appropriate here, even if they don't help define the exact composition of the group. So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept. :I agree. As to your "on the other hand" - maybe, maybe not. I am uncertain where the spilt should be (see my notes added to the "clasdistics" above). You may well be right that Plantae and Viridiplantae can fit in here strongly. I do think the real taxonomy breakdown of Plantae should be elsewhere in a taxonomy article, but I understand it could be be in more than one place, with simply a more general treatment here. - User:Marshman Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either ''complex multicellular phototrophs'', ''green plants'' or ''embryophytes''. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria ''don't'' have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. User:Josh Grosse 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I saw that "chloroplast" error after I saved my comments, but was unsure what you meant by "chloroplasts" (cholorophyll or actual plastids) so I let it stand. Also, there are green algae that do not fit what you state "most" biologists consider the Kingdom Plantae, and I would argue that biologists do not limit their sense of plants to ''complex multicellular phototrophs''. Quite the contrary, I am a practicing biologist with long previous experience with the algae, and regard all seaweeds (for example) as plants (whether Plantae or not). - User:Marshman 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Sorry! I simply meant ''multicellular phototrophs'', i.e. including seaweeds - the definition ''sensu'' Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like ''Chlamydomonas''. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, ''some'' of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). User:Josh Grosse 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I'm in the middle of a deadline and a stream restoration conference all day tomorrow, so I'll not have time until Wednesday to review what you have done, but the embryophyte article looks good to me. - User:Marshman 04:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Did you give up, or are you still planning to make more changes? I find the article confusing as it stands right now. - User:Marshman 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I gather you gave up. I'm as convinced as ever that this article is just wrong. There is no need to attempt to make "plant" and "Plantae" or "Green plants" match. Botanists do not think they match, so why is this POV pushed here? - User:Marshman 05:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Plant:
PLANT
Plant
Plant
Plant-based_diet
Plant-made_pharmaceuticals
Plant-made_pharmaceuticals
Plant-Man
Plant-stub
Plant-stub
Plantae
Plantae
Plantae_Asiaticae_Rariories
Plantaganets
Plantagenet
Plantagenet,_Western_Australia
Plantagenets
Plantagenets
Plantagenet_Palliser
Plantagenet_shire
Plantagenet_times
Plantaginaceae
Plantaginaceae
Plantaginales
Plantago
Plantago_lanceolata
Plantain
Plantain
Plantains
Plantain_eater
Plantano
Plantanos
Plantar
Plantars_wort
Plantar_facilitis
Plantar_fascia
Plantar_fasciitis
Plantar_fascitis
Plantar_flexion
Plantar_reflex
Plantar_wart
Plantation
Plantation
Plantation,_Broward,_FL
Plantation,_Broward,_Florida
Plantation,_Broward_County,_FL
Plantation,_Broward_County,_Florida
Plantation,_FL
Plantation,_Florida
Plantation,_Kentucky
Plantation,_KY
Plantation,_Sarasota,_FL
Plantation,_Sarasota,_Florida
Plantation,_Sarasota_County,_FL
Plantation,_Sarasota_County,_Florida
Plantations
Plantations_in_Maine
Plantations_of_Ireland
Plantations_of_Ireland
Plantation_(settlement_or_colony)
Plantation_desk
Plantation_Economy
Plantation_economy
Plantation_economy
Plantation_Island,_FL
Plantation_Island,_Florida
Plantation_Mobile_Home_Park,_FL
Plantation_Mobile_Home_Park,_Florida
Plantation_of_Ulster
Plantation_Records
Plantation_tradition
Plantcutter
PlantDoc
Plante
Planté
Planted_news
Planted_news
Planters
Plantersville
Plantersville,_Mississippi
Plantersville,_MS
Plantexplorer
Planté_(crater)
Plantibody
Plantigrade
Plantigrade_locomotion
Plantin
Planting
Planting_Fields_Arboretum
Planting_Fields_Arboretum
Plantin_Press
Plantman
Plantman_(Marvel)
Plantocracy
Plantocracy
Plantperson
Plantronics
PLANTs
Plants
Plants
PLANTSDB
Plants_and_Animals_of_Belize
Plants_and_animals_of_Belize
Plants_and_animals_of_Belize
Plants_pulse
PLANTs_Supreme_Council
Plantwater
Plant_(disambiguation)
Plant_(professional_wrestling)
PLANT_(space_colony)
Plant_42
Plant_anatomy
Plant_Bath
Plant_biology
Plant_Biology_at_Cornell
Plant_biotechnology
Plant_biotechnology
Plant_breeders'_rights
Plant_breeding
Plant_breeding
Plant_Bukkake
Plant_cell
Plant_cell
Plant_Cells
Plant_cells
Plant_City
Plant_City,_FL
Plant_City,_Florida
Plant_disease
Plant_diseases
Plant_embryogenesis
Plant_Explorer
Plant_families
Plant_families
Plant_Farley
Plant_growth_substance
Plant_hardiness_zone
Plant_hardiness_zones
Plant_hormone
Plant_hormone
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_improvement
Plant_improvement
Plant_invasion
Plant_Investment_Company
Plant_Life_Records
Plant_nursery
Plant_nutrition
Plant_pathology
Plant_photo_collection_I
Plant_photo_collection_I
Plant_physiology
Plant_physiology
Plant_propagation
Plant_Recreation_Centre
Plant_Reproductive_System
Plant_science
Plant_Sciences
Plant_sciences
Plant_Sciences_at_Rice_University
Plant_Sciences_at_Wageningen_University
Plant_Senescence
Plant_senescence
Plant_senescence
Plant_sexuality
Plant_sexuality
Plant_stanol
Plant_stanol_ester
Plant_stem
Plant_stubs
Plant_succession
PLANT_Supreme_Council
PLANT_Supreme_Council
Plant_System
Plant_System
Plant_System_of_Railroads
Plant_System_of_Railways
Plant_Temu
Plant_tissue_culture
Plant_tissue_culture
Plant_variety_rights
Plant_virus
Plant_virus
Plant_viruses
Plant_viruses
PLANT
#redirect:Factions of the Cosmic Era
Plant
* Green algae * Embryophyte (embryophytes) * ''Non-vascular embryophytes'' ** Liverwort - liverworts ** Hornwort - hornworts ** Bryophytes - mosses * Vascular plants (tracheophytes) * ''Seedless vascular plants'' ** Lycopodiophyta - clubmosses ** Equisetophyta - horsetails ** fern - "true" ferns ** whisk fern - whisk ferns ** Ophioglossophyta - adderstongues * ''Spermatophyta (spermatophytes)'' ** †Pteridospermatophyta - seed ferns ** Pinophyta - conifers ** Cycad - cycads ** Ginkgo - ginkgo ** Gnetae - gnetae ** Flowering plant - flowering plants :''A plant may be a manufacturing facility. This article is about the living things.'' ---- Plants are a major group of living things (about 300,000 species), including familiar organisms such as trees, flowers, herbs, and ferns. Aristotle divided all living things between plants, which generally do not move or have sensory organs, and animals. In Carolus Linnaeus' system, these became the kingdom (biology) Vegetabilia (later Plantae) and Animalia. Since then, it has become clear that the Plantae as originally defined included several unrelated groups, and the fungus and several groups of algae were removed to new kingdoms. However, these are still often considered plants in many contexts. Indeed, any attempt to match "plant" with a single taxon is doomed to fail, because plant is a vaguely defined concept unrelated to the presumed phylogenic concepts on which modern taxonomy is based. ==Embryophytes== :''See main article at Embryophytes'' Most familiar are the multicellular land plants, called embryophytes. They include the vascular plants, plants with full systems of leaf, stems, and roots. They also include a few of their close relatives, often called ''bryophytes'', of which mosses are the most common. All of these plants have eukaryote cells with cell walls composed of cellulose, and most obtain their energy through photosynthesis, using light and carbon dioxide to synthesize food. About 300 plant species do not photosynthesize but are parasites on other species of photosynthetic plants. Plants are distinguished from green algae, from which they evolved, by having specialized reproductive organs protected by non-reproductive tissues. Bryophytes first appeared during the early Palaeozoic. They can only survive in moist environments, and remain small throughout their life-cycle. This involves an alternation between two generations: a haploid stage, called the gametophyte, and a diploid stage, called the sporophyte. The sporophyte is short-lived and remains dependent on its parent. Vascular plants first appeared during the Silurian period, and by the Devonian had diversified and spread into many different land environments. They have a number of adaptations that allowed them to overcome the limitations of the bryophytes. These include a cuticle resistant to desiccation, and vascular tissues which transport water throughout the organism. In many the sporophyte acts as a separate individual, while the gametophyte remains small. [[Image:Spermatophyta.png|thumb|320px|left|Phylogeny of the modern Spermatophyta (seed plants) and some allied vascular plant groups. Note that the spore-bearing vascular plants are paraphyletic with respect to the seed plants, with ferns (Pteridophyta) more closely allied to seed plants than they are to clubmosses (Lycopodiophyta)]] The first primitive seed plants, Pteridosperms (seed ferns) and Cordaites, both groups now extinct, appeared in the late Devonian and diversified through the Carboniferous, with further evolution through the Permian and Triassic periods. In these the gametophyte stage is completely reduced, and the sporophyte begins life inside an enclosure called a seed, which develops while on the parent plant, and with fertilisation by means of pollen grains. Whereas other vascular plants, such as ferns, reproduce by means of spores and so need moisture to develop, some seed plants can survive and reproduce in extremely arid conditions. Early seed plants are referred to as gymnosperms (naked seeds), as the seed embryo is not enclosed in a protective structure at pollination, with the pollen landing directly on the embryo. Four surviving groups remain widespread now, particularly the conifers, which are dominant trees in several biomes. The angiosperms, comprising the flowering plants, were the last major group of plants to appear, emerging from within the gymnosperms during the Jurassic and diversifying rapidly during the Cretaceous. These differ in that the seed embryo is enclosed, so the pollen has to grow a tube to penetrate the protective seed coat; they are the predominant group of flora in most biomes today. ==Algae and Fungi== The algae comprise several different groups of organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis. The most conspicuous are the seaweeds, multicellular algae that often closely resemble terrestrial plants, found among the green alga, red alga, and brown algae. These and other algal groups also include various single-celled creatures and forms that are simple collections of cells, without differentiated biological_tissue. Many can move about, and some have even lost their ability to photosynthesize; when first discovered, these were considered as both plants and animals. The embryophytes developed from green algae; the two are collectively referred to as the green plants or Viridaeplantae. The kingdom Plantae is now usually taken to mean this monophyletic group, as shown above. With a few exceptions among the green algae, all such forms have cell walls containing cellulose and chloroplasts containing chlorophylls ''a'' and ''b'', and store food in the form of starch. They undergo closed mitosis without centrioles, and typically have mitochondrion with flat cristae. The chloroplasts of green plants are surrounded by two membranes, suggesting they originated directly from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. The same is true of the red algae, and the two groups are generally believed to have a common origin. In contrast, most other algae have chloroplasts with three or four membranes. They are not in general close relatives of the green plants, acquiring chloroplasts separately from ingested or symbiotic green and red algae. Unlike embryophytes and algae, fungus are not photosynthetic, but are saprophytes: they obtain their food by breaking down and absorbing surrounding materials. Most fungi are formed by microscopic tubes called hyphae, which may or may not be divided into cells but contain eukaryotic cell nucleus. Fruiting bodies, of which mushrooms are the most familiar, are actually only the reproductive structures of fungi. They are not related to any of the photosynthetic groups, but are close relatives of animals. ==Importance== The photosynthesis and carbon fixation conducted by land plants and algae are the ultimate source of energy and organic material in nearly all habitats. These processes also radically changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, which as a result contains a large proportion of oxygen. Animals and most other organisms are aerobic organism, relying on oxygen; those that do not are confined to relatively few, anaerobic environments. Much of human nutrition depends on cereals. Other plants that are eaten include fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices. Some vascular plants, referred to as trees and shrubs, produce woody stems and are an important source of building material. A number of plants are used decoratively, including a variety of flowers. ==Growth== Simple plants like algae may have short life spans as individuals, but their populations are commonly seasonal. Other plants may be organized according to their seasonal growth pattern: * Annual plant: live and reproduce within one growing season. * Biennial plant: live for two growing seasons; usually reproduce in second year. * Perennial plant: live for many growing seasons; continue to reproduce once mature. Among the vascular plants, perennials include both evergreens that keep their leaves the entire year, and deciduous plants which lose their leaves for some part. In temperate and boreal climates, they generally lose their leaves during the winter; many tropical plants lose their leaves during the dry season. The growth rate of plants is extremely variable. Some mosses grow less than 1 μm/h, while most trees grow 25-250 μm/h. Some climbing species, such as kudzu, which do not need to produce thick supportive tissue, may grow up to 12500 μm/h. == Fossils == Plant fossils include roots, wood, leaves, seeds, fruit, pollen, spores and amber (the fossilized resin produced by some plants). Fossil land plants are recorded in terrestrial, lacustrine, fluvial and nearshore marine sediments. Pollen, spores and algae (dinoflagellates and acritarchs) are used for dating sedimentary rock sequences. The remains of fossil plants are not as common as fossil animals, although plant fossils are locally abundant in many regions worldwide. Early fossil plants are well known from the Devonian period, including the chert of Rhynie in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. The best preserved examples, from which their cellular construction has been described, have been found at this locality. The preservation is so perfect that sections of these ancient plants show the individual cells within the plant tissue. The Devonian period also saw the evolution of what many believe to be the first modern tree, ''Archaeopteris''. This fern-like tree combined a woody trunk with the fronds of a fern, but produced no seeds. [[Image:Fossil Plant Ginkgo.jpg|left|thumb|Fossil Ginkgo leaves from the Jurassic of England]] The Coal Measures are a major source of Palaeozoic plant fossils, with many groups of plants in existence at this time. The spoil heaps of coal mines are the best places to collect; coal itself is the remains of fossilised plants, though structural detail of the plant fossils is rarely visible in coal. In the Fossil Forest at Victoria Park in Glasgow, Scotland, the stumps of ''Lepidodendron'' trees are found in their original growth positions. The fossilized remains of conifer and angiosperm roots, stems and branches may be locally abundant in lake and inshore sedimentary rocks from the Mesozoic and Caenozoic eras. Coast Redwood and its allies, magnolia, oak, and Arecaceae are often found. Petrified wood is common in some parts of the world, and is most frequently found in arid or desert areas were it is more readily exposed by erosion. Petrified wood is often heavily silicified (the organic material replaced by silicon dioxide), and the impregnated tissue is often preserved in fine detail. Such specimens may be cut and polished using lapidary equipment. Fossil forests of petrified wood have been found in all continents. Fossils of seed ferns such as ''Glossopteris'' are widely distributed throughout several continents of the southern hemisphere, a fact that gave support to Alfred Wegener's early ideas regarding Continental drift theory. ==References and further reading== *Thomas N Taylor and Edith L Taylor. ''The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants''. Prentice Hall, 1993. ==See also== * Biosphere * Botany * Garden * Flower * Forest * Fruit * Plant cell * Phytophilia (love of plants) * Prehistoric plants * Tree * Vegetable * Vegetation Structure ==External links== * [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Green_plants&contgroup=Eukaryotes Tree of Life] * Chaw, S.-M. et al. [http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1997/1401/7chaw.pdf Molecular Phylogeny of Extant Gymnosperms and Seed Plant Evolution: Analysis of Nuclear 18s rRNA Sequences (pdf file)] ''Molec. Biol. Evol''. 14 (1): 56-68. 1997. ===Botanical and vegetation databases=== * [http://www.efloras.org/index.aspx e-Floras (Flora of China, Flora of North America and others)] * [http://plants.usda.gov/ United States of America] * [http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html Flora Europaea] * [http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/databases/ Australia] * [http://davesgarden.com/pdb/ 'Dave's Garden' horticultural plant database] Plants ms:Tumbuhan zh-min-nan:Si̍t-bu̍t fur:Plantis ga:Planda la:Planta nah:Kilitl nds:Plant simple:Plant vi:Thực vật bn:উদ্ভিদ th:พืช
Plant
''Some discussion material removed to Talk:Plantae if relevant to Plant Classification'' Can someone answer this basic question: what do most plants eat. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... No really. Plants don't eat, per se, but the bulk of their mass is created from carbon extracted from carbon dioxide via the process of photosynthesis. So I guess you can simplify that and say that plants 'eat' air and sunlight. :-) --User:Maveric149 :Actually, plant nutrition is a two-way street. The photosynthetic formula is that the plant absorbs carbon dioxide and water, and uses sunlight to drive a chemical process that makes sugar and oxygen from them. Human beings do just the opposite -- they take in the sugar and oxygen, reverse the reaction to release energy, and exude water and carbon dioxide. However, plants also absorb nutrients through the roots along with water, and send these throughout the plant's structure. The xylem conducts water and minerals up, the phloem conducts the sugars down. User:Jaknouse 23:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Does the classification by growth actually apply to anything other than seed plants, and flowering plants in particular? : Moved to flowering plant. -User:Menchi 05:30 26 May 2003 (UTC) :Sorry, I moved it back, but now I agree (after reading these comments) it does not belong here. I'll fix. I see there has been a fair bit of discussion about what to include and what not to include on this page. I'm looking things over and I'm inclined to move the taxonomy stuff back to the Redirect Plantae where it was originally developed as that makes perfect sense botanically. This is a constant problem in natural sciences. There is a "public" perception of what something (like "plant") is, and we tend to want to match that with the article name. But the truth is, these things have been worked out by botanists in ways not necessarily compatible with the common perceptions and we get into trouble trying to satisfy conflicting POVs. I'm sure whoever moved the stuff into Plant was not aware of the conflict that creates because we all think we know what a ''plant'' is — how hard can it be to define? But as someone points out and Menchi fixes, the classification of growth does not apply to all plants, and cannot be represented as such. Leaving it here just reinforces the narrow perception that plants are really things like ferns and flowers. I'll work on this problem for awhile. I am cognizant of a need to keep the "public" or common POV right up front. - User:Marshman 05:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ------ ''Some stuff moved from botany.'' == Material to be moved out == ''This is all covered better elsewhere and is confusing here (this is not a textbook but an article on the Science of Botany'' The Kingdom Plantae is divided into divisions (the term "division" was traditionally used instead of "phylum" as in the animals, but either term is now accepted). * Hepatophyta, liverworts * Anthocerophyta, hornworts * Bryophyta, mosses * Lycophyta, club mosses * Psilotophyta, whisk ferns * Sphenophyta, horsetails * Pterophyta, ferns * Cycadophyta, cycads * Ginkgophyta, ginkgo * Gnetophyta * Pinophyta, conifers * Flowering_plant, flowering plants ** Liliopsida, monocots ** Magnoliopsida, dicots == I have pictures == I have hundreds and can take thousands of various troopical plants that grow in Belize. Only problem is I take them because the plants intrest me not for scientific purposes and have no way of identifying there scicetific name so can't post them in any useable way. How can I contributate them properly? Also I am more than willing to take pictures on request by anyone and can use them here on wikipedia User:Belizian 07:49, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC) :To be useful, most (but not all) should have a clear image of the flower. Ecceptions might be those with very distinctive foliage or pictures of individual trees. However, even in the latter cases, an image of the flower would usually be required to begin identification. Assuming you have pictures of flowers, you could post them at Flower_album and see if others can identify. That gets them on Wikipedia with your name and notes for others to place in articles as appropriate -- User:Marshman 17:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Okay I can do that but what name to give pic1 pic2 etc? Can the names be changed once uploaded and Identified? -- Belizian :: No, they are permanent. But the names of the files are the least of our problem. Do not worry. We will just re-upload with the correct names once we find them out. The image is the important part, because they are not easy to get. So, in the mean time, just say "Star-leaved plant 27.JPG" or something descriptive is ok. --User:Menchi 01:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::I agree. Be sure to fill in info about the picture on the photo document page. Include photographer credit, date taken, location, etc. info that you can. Then if we move the pictures to new names, we will be able to retain all the important source information at the new name place (so the name itself is really unimportant) - User:Marshman 01:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) Would it be good to include a few pictures on this page? Perhaps a fern, an angiosperm, and some algae...just to give an idea of the range of what plants look like? I'm modeling this idea after the layout of the Tree of Life [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Green_plants&contgroup=Eukaryotes]. User:AdamRetchless 18:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC) :Sounds like a good idea to me. If you look at Wikibooks, and find the biology textbook (also somne xchapters of Invert Zoology), you will see something similar to what you suggest that I made for those articles - User:Marshman 19:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I know this was more or less settled, but this page as it stands is simply untenable. The goal of the present revision was to allow for all definitions of plant, both phylogenetic and popular, and this is a good thing. But the way it's done presently, there's essentially no information on most plants until the second page! And it's hardly useful for a popular audience to talk about photoautotrophs before they know that things like roses and pine trees are photoautotrophic, so I think the treatment backfires. Plus it suggests the only vascular plants are universally considered plants, which leaves out mosses, and that there is a unique circumscription for the kingdom Plantae, when it practice it varies and at different points in time has included all these organisms. What I would suggest is splitting this article into two sections, with a ''brief'' introduction to explain them. The first would be embryophytes, which are universally considered plants and include most of the plants we run into every day. The second would be other plants, and talk about algae and fungi, including most of the current first paragraph. Note that the second includes green algae, so this isn't a split into "real plants" and "fake plants"; rather, it's the traditional split into "higher plants" and "lower plants". It would let us give some information right up front without forcing a particular definition. Would this be ok with everyone? I could right an alt page before hand, if you're simply not sure. If not, somebody should propose something else, because as I said they article is currently far more intimidating than informative. -- user:Josh Grosse :Go ahead and write that intro paragraph you think is needed. I do not think it will help completely as long as we have the big section on Kingdom Plantae taxonomy to deal with at the end. I tried to split that out to Kingdom Plantae a while back, but ran into a person that did not want to discuss, just revert, so I gave up. I think the taxonomy IS a bit intimidating and should go where those really interested can enjoy it. Your suggestion may be a better way to arrange the plant page, I really cannot tell without seeing it first. However, I do NOT think there is any concensus about what "plant" means, just what Plantae means, so that problem should be dealt with somewhere, presumably up front (?) - User:Marshman 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) I think the problem should be mentioned at the beginning, but explanation of the variations should go last. Plants are defined mainly by composition, and each of the green algae, red algae, brown algae, unicellular algae, and fungi need their own explanations, which are less important in general than the characteristics most plants share. By the way, there ''isn't'' a concensus on what Plantae means, either. Anyways, if you're willing to consider this approach, I should have a sample page up in a few days. -- user:Josh Grosse ---- Boy, I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. The recent changes by Tom Radulovich to the section about difficulties of defining "plant" have gutted important points and added non-relevant stuff about cladistics. Also, placing of the useful paragraph on lichens under stystematics of Plantae completely escapes me, thought it did make sense as another example of "plants" that are difficult to reconcile with definitions based on systematics. The whole point of that first section is to point out that what most people, including botanists, tend to call "plants" are not always what taxonomists place under Plantae. There is no reconciling the problem, it is simply a case of a common term not matching a technical one. Tom's changes seem to miss this point, as if he just assumes (but he certainly does know better) that plants are Plantae and vice versa. What gives? - User:Marshman 16:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC) :I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the two sections of the article. The first section, "Difficulties in the Definition", problematizes the definition of "Plant" by exploring the differences between popular definitions of plant and scientific ones. I did think that some of the statements seemed more speculative than factual; how does one know what is not likely ever to happen, or what will always happen? Is it utterly impossible that plant and Plantae might one day mean the same thing? Is it wise to assert that popular and scientific definitions of a thing will always differ? It seemed enough to explain that popular and scientific definitions presently do differ, and why. ::Yes. I tried to split these once upon a time, but ran into opposition. I still think there is as place for both plant and Plantae and it makes a lot more sense to split them (Josh and I had worked out the split, at one time); but another argued that they mean the same thing, and threatened to revert if we split the article. I had no problem with your removal of the speculative part, just the algae "example". :The second section presents a straightforward description of current consensus on the classification and evolution of plants. As defined in this section, it is not inconceivable that one could use "plant" and "Plantae" synonymously. One could understand Wikipedia articles to be an effort to popularize scientific knowledge and usage. ::I think both sections are good; but they are addressing somewhat different aspects. Of course all Plantae are plants. The problem is, that not all plants are Plantae (the definitions are different). It seems to me you will never get anyone to accept that, in seaweeds for example, green algae are plants and red algae are not. One is Plantae but both are either plants or both are not. The problem is inherent in the fact that people don't think in phylogenic terms, but more in absolutes. But I agree with your premise about Wikipedia, I just do not see it working any time soon with the term "plant" and I'm not convinced it is always a good idea to force (or expect) a match between scientific and common terminologies. I find the concept of standardizing "common names" (as ornithologists have done) a bit arrogant. Common names belong to the social fabric, not the scientists. But I still get upset when a bison is shown on TV and it is called a buffalo. Go figure; no one said I had to be consistent ;^). :Not sure why cladistics are irrelevant to a discussion of defining Kingdom Plantae. As the article says, "we must include some reference to the classification system in any scholarly effort to gain or give information about them". Current phylogeny tends to favor monophyletic clades, which certainly bears on what contemporary classification systems would consider to be a useful and defensible definition of Plantae. If the groups described in the second section of the article are found to be monophyletic, then it strengthens the argument for maintaining the current definition; if the taxon is found to by polyphyletic, then multiple clades will come into use. ::Perfectly relevant to the second part on Kingdom Plantae. I think someone moved it down there from where it was floarting in the middle of the "plant" definition section, where it was out of place. I think your additions to the Plantae section have been excellent—well, except maybe the "lichens" part. :With regard to lichens, I introduced the topic with the intent of explaining that lichens are a symbiote between an alga and a fungus, and to describe where the green algal partners fit in the classification system presented in the second section. Alternately, a lichen could be used to illustrate the difficulties of defining "plant". If lichens can appear only one place in the article, I prefer that they appear where I initially placed them, in the section on evolution and classification, so as to de-problematize them to the extent possible. There is of course no reason that they cannot appear in both sections, as an illustration of the difficulties of definition, and further on to explain where the algal partners fit in the plant classification scheme as it is presented in the article. User:Tom Radulovich 03:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC) ::Information I liked. I moved it up and reworded it so it would be an example for the definition section, but then you moved it back down below again (and reworded to better fit there). It does introduce more problems than it solves, however, under Plantae, since lichens really cannot be classified (the partners can individually). I think another party just moved it out to where it would be most appropriate under lichens. Like you said, it could go in all three places and be made appropriate. I was just unclear why you took it out as an example of why "plant" is not easy to define? - User:Marshman 06:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Added ==Plants as fossils== Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web. User:Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. User:Dlloyd 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) === Proposed rewrite === I have a proposed rewrite at user:Josh Grosse/Plant, and would like to know what others think of it. Justification for the proposed changes are: * The "common POV" Marshman discusses is ''not'' dominant even among popular books, which tend to say that plants produce food through photosynthesis and usually that fungi aren't plants. * There has not been a single concept of the Plantae. Its composition has changed exactly the same way as that of the plants has, and is still not entirely settled. The differing versions of both are best treated as variations on the same idea. * Plants are defined less by characters and more by composition. There is a certain core group that everyone includes, the embryophytes (vascular plants leave out moss), and all the definitions are variations on ''embryophytes and things like them''. Plants don't ''need'' a hard-and-fast definition, and our focus on it seems uniquely inconvenient. * In that vein, the vast majority of links and visitors will be assuming this page discusses that core group. Also, future editors, as Tom and Dlloyd prove. As such, discussing that core group is far more important and maintainable than working through the detailed semantics of which other groups to include, and certainly should not be relegated to the second half of the article. * At the same time, algae and fungi ''are'' often considered plants outside of a taxonomic context, so they should be discussed here. I think a brief overview of their similarities and differences relative to the embryophytes does a better job explaining the varying definitions of plant than attempting a thorough enumeration. It's been a week, and there have been no comments, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page. It can always be changed back if there are complaints, but for the time being I'll assume the silence means nobody is particularly concerned. User:Josh Grosse 04:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I did not respond back because in August I was not working on Wikipedia. But I think the changes you made, while not all "bad" by any means, have just opened this page (article) up to continued problems. The whole idea that the term "plant" has some good match with a taxonomic grouping is simply not the case with our present understanding of the relationships among plant-like organisms. Forcing this fit is what makes problems here. Many of your points above simply miss the mark. For example, the first one: I do not say fungi are always treated as plants, but that they were once (and still are) included within the perview of botanists. In the general mind set, that lists them with plants if not plants themelves. I then pointed out why they might not be plants. Your second point is just confusing: The concept of plants has changed exactly the same way as the concept of plants has?. On your third point: what we had was a broad definition; you changed that to no definition, but a good historical statement. On this point we seem to agree, but you actually moved the text in a direction away from it. On expectations of visitors, I disagree. I think visitors are not expecting a core group but a definition and discussion of what a "plant" is, and why it is not something else (like a fungus as you point out). Emphasizing the difficulty of defining "plant" educates a reader that might have thought it was an easy, straight-forward concept. The "core group" should not even be in the article (although discussed and liberally linked), but elsewhere where a taxonomic approach makes sense. That would clear up the future editing problems. The article is a problem because of a (IMHO) silly Wikipedia concept that common terms should be used everywhere for biological entities, which only makes sense if their is a common term that coincides in boundaries with a taxonomic grouping. Get the "core group" off this page and into its own article(s) like Embryophyta, and this page will return to having meaning instead of being just a confusion. Right now it still implies that "plant" and "Plantae" are the same thing. Sorry, one is a common term and the other a taxonomic grouping. They do not coincide. - User:Marshman 17:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) That simply isn't true. The kingdom Plantae originally included fungi because they were considered plants. Conversely, nowadays many people do not consider fungi to be plants - contrary to your earlier addition, this seems to be the general opinion, at least where I am - for precisely the same reasons they are no longer included in the Plantae. The concept of what plants are has varied in exactly the same way the composition of the Plantae, and that means the notions are the same. Separating them would require the exact same discussion twice, fungi and all. Yes, one is a colloquial term and the other a taxon, but the same is true for ''rotifers'' and ''Rotifera'' - one is simply a formal version of the other. I certainly don't expect this article to be a detailed discussion of boundary cases. Plants means and has always meant ''embryophytes and things similar to them'', and to me it's far more important to discuss flowers and trees than to debate whether colorless euglenids are just similar enough. If that quibbling is necessary ''it'' should go on Plantae, since only taxonomists are concerned with it. Most human concepts are inherently fuzzy. North America can be a continent including Greenland, a landmass including Panama, or a geopolitical region excluding both. Characterizing those details is not what's important about it. Do other readers and editors agree? I can't be sure, which is why I asked for opinions. From past edits it looks to me like they didn't mind a discussion of the exact circumscription, but expect the term to be defined by phylogenetics and certainly to exclude the fungi. As such, at the very least it looks like the idea that plant and Plantae have the same meaning has general support. That said, I'd like to concede that you are probably right in requesting that detailed discussion of the core group should be moved out. It's definitely something worthy of a separate topic, and it's increasingly uncommon to consider the plants as comprising them exclusively. Some general information should be retained here, and ''not'' just something trying to explain how they fit into a formal definition, which simply isn't important. I'll move most of it back to embryophytes in a few days, although I think a taxobox should be kept here. Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the eukaryotes with primary chloroplasts form a single evolutionary line, and following Cavalier-Smith this is usually given the name Plantae. However, this doesn't correspond to the plants or Plantae as they are used colloquially or by most other taxonomists. I'm curious if you have an idea about what to do with it. User:Josh Grosse 08:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Do not get me wrong. I do not "dislike" the way you rewrote the page. I just think it misses some critical points. As for the fungi, I agree, not classified as plants, but certainly considered plants through a long history, and therefore requires here an explain or reason why they are no longer so regarded. The problem with any article based on a common term like plants is that readers come in with all kinds of preconceptions. I'm not saying we need to support all those, but we do need to move them gently in the direction of modern concepts. I have a bigger problem with the seaweeds where I think there is no easy reconciliation. Either seaweeds are plants or they are not. The present situation is that "some of them are". :Someone added some interesting points to the Talk:Flowering plant page with a link to [http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/overview.html] which shows this system of plant classification that makes more sense to me than what we presently are following: *Living Organisms (clade Biota) *Eukaryotes (clade Eucarya), i.e. possess a membrane bounded cell nucleus *Plants (clade Plantae), i.e. possess chloroplasts *Green plants (clade Viridiplantae) (''This article should end here or one level up IMHO'') *Embryophytes or land plants (clade Embryophyta) *Vascular plants (clade Tracheophyta), i.e. possess tracheids : - User:Marshman 17:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hm. Nobody actually thinks all organisms with chloroplasts form a clade, so that Plantae is probably supposed to be the primary-chloroplast version I mentioned, green plants and red algae. Unfortunately this group seems somewhat tentative - it's hard to judge its current popularity, but as little as five years ago it wasn't widely accepted. The Viridiplantae are generally accepted and correspond better with the general concept of plants, but note the green algae are often considered Protista along with the other unicellular organisms and seaweeds. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the article ending at a level. I think we need to at least mention embryophytes, what distinguishes them, and perhaps name some examples, though the detailed systematics should go elsewhere. Does that sound good to you? User:Josh Grosse 21:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I do not know exactly what the authors meant sensu Plantae regarding chloroplasts. But having that level within Eukaryoytes obviously means there is at least one other group (Prokaryotes) with members that have chloroplasts not in their clade Plantae. I find other subdivisions of chloroplast bearing Eukaryotes a bit specualtive as to when they spilt off and how many endosymbionic events are represented, even though it is firmly established that all higher plants represent only one such evolutionary line (their Viridiplantae). Whether the latter "correspond better with the general concept of plants" indicates you are still trying to match the taxonimic or cladistic approaches to the common term "plant"; and that is where I think things go wrong. Because of historic inclusion of fungi; because of inclusion of all "algae" including some cyanobacteria, in the common sense of "plant" one simply cannot match the term "plant" to a logical scientific concept. Why try to force that fit by saying "plants" are really just "Viridiplantae" or just "Embryophyta"? I say, give the broadest possible definition (sense) of what plants are and then, by reasoning and evidence, show why scientists now regard the true plants to be just a subset of that group. "Plant" is not a common term subject to manipulation and redefining by scientists. "Plants" is plants, and to most people, that includes more than just the "true plants" and more than the "land plants" even though these are the groupings we would agree most people typically refer to as plants. :Of course, this approach requires more than just mentioning embryophtes. It includes all that you say above. What I think we "delete" is just the taxonoic treatment of these higher groups. If you look at the article as I last left it before August, it had a terminating list of links after the "plant definition" section with provided links to all the various groups mentioned. The article should end after that list. All the taxonomy on "true" plants should be moved to articles on Viridiplantae and/or Embryophyta. That way, persons interested in the scientific approach get off on a track that follows current thinking regarding taxonomy and evolution. Persons who still regard mushrooms as a plant form learn first why this may not be a good conceptual approach, but are provided links to the articles on fungi and mushrooms if that be their primary interest. To put another way: a person could be interested in seaweeds and could start at "plants" as a logical entry point. They would find out why all seaweeds might not be true plants, but then find links to the algae and seaweeds to persue their initial primary interest. - User:Marshman 17:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I agree with that, but I also think that there's a core group of plants, and that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. No, the common conception of plants isn't identical to any of the botanical conceptions, but it is often as similar to them as they are to each other. Everyone agrees trees, flowers, ferns, and mosses are plants, and that's as important as uncertainty over whether to include fungi and cyanobacteria. Making this a disambiguation page overemphasizes the latter, and I am not the only one who considers it inappropriate. :Discussion of course. Such discussion is essential to an article named "plants" and I certainly did not mean anything like a disambiguation page. I meant end article after the discussion and links, but the discussion should be lengthy and thorough. This is an article on the term "plant" - User:Marshman ::''No!'' This is supposed to be an article about plants, not simply the term. It should be as important, if not more, to explain important aspects of the organisms generally considered plants as it is to explain why certain other groups might or might not be classified with them. In depth systematics of subgroups, among which the embryophytes can now reasonably be counted, should of course go elsewhere but important characteristics, notes about ecology, and things like the fossil section are all entirely appropriate here, even if they don't help define the exact composition of the group. So I think we should list off the major building blocks that have been considered plants - embryophytes, green, red, brown, and other algae, and fungi - and link to their pages for more information. We should also discuss why they have been considered plants, and why they might not be now. On the other hand, the Viridiplantae are a prominent version of what counts as a plant, so should be discussed here; since they are just embryophytes and green algae, they don't need a separate article. Splitting such near-synonyms is generally a bad idea even when they don't represent exactly the same concept. :I agree. As to your "on the other hand" - maybe, maybe not. I am uncertain where the spilt should be (see my notes added to the "clasdistics" above). You may well be right that Plantae and Viridiplantae can fit in here strongly. I do think the real taxonomy breakdown of Plantae should be elsewhere in a taxonomy article, but I understand it could be be in more than one place, with simply a more general treatment here. - User:Marshman Note that for the clade Plantae, what I mean is that it doesn't match the concept most biologists have of the kingdom, which is usually either ''complex multicellular phototrophs'', ''green plants'' or ''embryophytes''. That it doesn't match the popular notions is a natural consequence. It should be mentioned, but I'm not sure we should organize things in terms of it. Also I should note cyanobacteria ''don't'' have chloroplasts; they have all the photosynthetic machinery, but it is not in separate compartments. User:Josh Grosse 20:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I saw that "chloroplast" error after I saved my comments, but was unsure what you meant by "chloroplasts" (cholorophyll or actual plastids) so I let it stand. Also, there are green algae that do not fit what you state "most" biologists consider the Kingdom Plantae, and I would argue that biologists do not limit their sense of plants to ''complex multicellular phototrophs''. Quite the contrary, I am a practicing biologist with long previous experience with the algae, and regard all seaweeds (for example) as plants (whether Plantae or not). - User:Marshman 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Sorry! I simply meant ''multicellular phototrophs'', i.e. including seaweeds - the definition ''sensu'' Whittacker, although I guess technically that includes close relatives like ''Chlamydomonas''. Green algae are very definitely green plants. Anyways, to get beyond talking past one another, I've resurrected the embryophyte article and made sure it included all the relevant information from this page. Accordingly, ''some'' of the material in the embryophyte section should now be removed. I'm not entirely sure how much, so feel free to change the article before I do. At the very least, though, a general characterization and some notable examples should stay (along with the taxobox for quick navigation). User:Josh Grosse 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I'm in the middle of a deadline and a stream restoration conference all day tomorrow, so I'll not have time until Wednesday to review what you have done, but the embryophyte article looks good to me. - User:Marshman 04:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Did you give up, or are you still planning to make more changes? I find the article confusing as it stands right now. - User:Marshman 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I gather you gave up. I'm as convinced as ever that this article is just wrong. There is no need to attempt to make "plant" and "Plantae" or "Green plants" match. Botanists do not think they match, so why is this POV pushed here? - User:Marshman 05:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Plant:
PLANT
Plant
Plant
Plant-based_diet
Plant-made_pharmaceuticals
Plant-made_pharmaceuticals
Plant-Man
Plant-stub
Plant-stub
Plantae
Plantae
Plantae_Asiaticae_Rariories
Plantaganets
Plantagenet
Plantagenet,_Western_Australia
Plantagenets
Plantagenets
Plantagenet_Palliser
Plantagenet_shire
Plantagenet_times
Plantaginaceae
Plantaginaceae
Plantaginales
Plantago
Plantago_lanceolata
Plantain
Plantain
Plantains
Plantain_eater
Plantano
Plantanos
Plantar
Plantars_wort
Plantar_facilitis
Plantar_fascia
Plantar_fasciitis
Plantar_fascitis
Plantar_flexion
Plantar_reflex
Plantar_wart
Plantation
Plantation
Plantation,_Broward,_FL
Plantation,_Broward,_Florida
Plantation,_Broward_County,_FL
Plantation,_Broward_County,_Florida
Plantation,_FL
Plantation,_Florida
Plantation,_Kentucky
Plantation,_KY
Plantation,_Sarasota,_FL
Plantation,_Sarasota,_Florida
Plantation,_Sarasota_County,_FL
Plantation,_Sarasota_County,_Florida
Plantations
Plantations_in_Maine
Plantations_of_Ireland
Plantations_of_Ireland
Plantation_(settlement_or_colony)
Plantation_desk
Plantation_Economy
Plantation_economy
Plantation_economy
Plantation_Island,_FL
Plantation_Island,_Florida
Plantation_Mobile_Home_Park,_FL
Plantation_Mobile_Home_Park,_Florida
Plantation_of_Ulster
Plantation_Records
Plantation_tradition
Plantcutter
PlantDoc
Plante
Planté
Planted_news
Planted_news
Planters
Plantersville
Plantersville,_Mississippi
Plantersville,_MS
Plantexplorer
Planté_(crater)
Plantibody
Plantigrade
Plantigrade_locomotion
Plantin
Planting
Planting_Fields_Arboretum
Planting_Fields_Arboretum
Plantin_Press
Plantman
Plantman_(Marvel)
Plantocracy
Plantocracy
Plantperson
Plantronics
PLANTs
Plants
Plants
PLANTSDB
Plants_and_Animals_of_Belize
Plants_and_animals_of_Belize
Plants_and_animals_of_Belize
Plants_pulse
PLANTs_Supreme_Council
Plantwater
Plant_(disambiguation)
Plant_(professional_wrestling)
PLANT_(space_colony)
Plant_42
Plant_anatomy
Plant_Bath
Plant_biology
Plant_Biology_at_Cornell
Plant_biotechnology
Plant_biotechnology
Plant_breeders'_rights
Plant_breeding
Plant_breeding
Plant_Bukkake
Plant_cell
Plant_cell
Plant_Cells
Plant_cells
Plant_City
Plant_City,_FL
Plant_City,_Florida
Plant_disease
Plant_diseases
Plant_embryogenesis
Plant_Explorer
Plant_families
Plant_families
Plant_Farley
Plant_growth_substance
Plant_hardiness_zone
Plant_hardiness_zones
Plant_hormone
Plant_hormone
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_hormones
Plant_improvement
Plant_improvement
Plant_invasion
Plant_Investment_Company
Plant_Life_Records
Plant_nursery
Plant_nutrition
Plant_pathology
Plant_photo_collection_I
Plant_photo_collection_I
Plant_physiology
Plant_physiology
Plant_propagation
Plant_Recreation_Centre
Plant_Reproductive_System
Plant_science
Plant_Sciences
Plant_sciences
Plant_Sciences_at_Rice_University
Plant_Sciences_at_Wageningen_University
Plant_Senescence
Plant_senescence
Plant_senescence
Plant_sexuality
Plant_sexuality
Plant_stanol
Plant_stanol_ester
Plant_stem
Plant_stubs
Plant_succession
PLANT_Supreme_Council
PLANT_Supreme_Council
Plant_System
Plant_System
Plant_System_of_Railroads
Plant_System_of_Railways
Plant_Temu
Plant_tissue_culture
Plant_tissue_culture
Plant_variety_rights
Plant_virus
Plant_virus
Plant_viruses
Plant_viruses
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
