Talk:Dioecious species

I do not mind your changing things I edit, but you do need to first understand the terminology. This sentence:

Dioecious plants form a minority of the plant kingdom, but occur in widely scattered plant orders, suggesting that dioecy is the derived condition, with monoecy the condition which plants originally showed.

is incorrect as written. Both dioecious AND monoecious plants probably form a minority in the plant kingdom. Since the author does not specify what the relationship is between monoecious and dioecious species (but between dioecious and ALL plants—certainly a majority of the flowering plants have perfect flowers) it is not possible to correct it (although it may be correctable). Further, it is not clear to me what is meant by "monoecy is an original condition", unless the writer is unaware of the definition of monoecious. In the angiosperms, I would think bisexual flowers is the "original condition" - Marshman 02:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is true on the basis that the perfect flowers of many/most angiosperms are a sub-set of monoecious species. The groups from which angiosperms evolved were probably monoecious, but with separate male and female flowers (as are still most gnetophytes and pinophytes), but could have been dioecious (as are most cycadophytes). But they didn't have perfect flowers, though these did evolve early on in the history of the angiosperms. - MPF 18:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Assuming that is correct, I still have a problem with the way you are attempting or insisting on presenting the definition. This statement:

"The other situation, a plant bearing both male and female organs on the same plant, is termed monoecious (from Greek for "one household").

My definition of "monoecious" includes the fact that the flowers or cones be unisexual. Any angiosperm with perfect flowers fits the poorly writen statement: "..a plant bearing both male and female organs on the same plant." Therefore, either my definition is wrong, or this statement requires clarification. Indeed, before I worked this, the entire article seemed to imply that all higher plants are either monoecious or dioecious. I do not believe this to be true. If you are pushing the case that higher plants are either monoecious or dioecious, then we both need to research this further. - Marshman 04:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dug into it further, consulting some on-line definitions, etc. and it is clear that you do not have a correct understanding of this term. Sorry I reverted, I hate to do that, but you removed some critical statements in the definition and added an incorrect assertion that sub-dioecy is "intermediate condition between monoecy and dioecy". This is just not true. I do not want an edit war here. I'm attempting to clarify a mis-understanding in the definition of some botanical terms. Please satisfy yourself that either you are absolutely correct or at the very least possibly a bit "fuzzy" by consulting some respected texts on Botany. I do not expect you to take my word for it. By the same token, I do expect you to try and grasp the meaning of these terms as definied by botanists, read what we both are adding, and come to a logical conclusion. - Marshman 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Marshman - what I described is correct for the example I gave, a conifer; the species I cited (Pinus culminicola, P. johannis, and a few others) are described as subdioecious, with about half of the trees producing 90% female cones, 10% male cones, and the other half producing 90% male cones, 10% female cones, "monoecious but nearly dioecious". Nothing to do with perfect flowers at all; it is clearly a very different situation to what your books (which sound very "angiospermist", a common failing of far too many botany texts) describe as sub-dioecious. Unfortunately the confusion between the two has left the article at the moment a real dog's breakfast, describing a conifer in angiosperm terminology that doesn't apply to it at all. Whatever is done, I think care should be taken to make the descriptions fully inclusive of all seed plants, avoiding terms that refer only to one division of the five, or where it is necessary to do so, to make it clear which division(s) are being discussed in that paragraph.

Despite having started the two articles monoecious and dioecious myself, I'd agree with the suggestion someone made to combine the two into one article (perhaps titled Plant reproduction?). Also where giving details that differ between the divisions, I think the descriptions should begin with description of the basal state and then later going on to the most derived state (the perfect flower) last.

For now, despite the article needing cleaning badly, I'll limit myself to a bit of minor grammatic editing I spotted (getting rid of those ghastly mdashes) until some good consensus can be reached - MPF 10:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will start a combination article (Plant sexuality or something to that effect) and we can have at there. That will allow us to move away from the dictionary definition style to a regular article that can treat the differences found in various pland divisions. The article I cite at the bottom is a source for definitions of ALL these terms, so I will work from that. Now I see what you mean about sub-dioecious in certain pines. Hopefully the definitions will clarify those situiations. Yes, all of my experience and books are covering angiosperms. I try not to be angiospermist, but do miss some subtleties where conifers are concerned (like the one you just pointed out). And, hey, I like m-dashes. They add some class if not over-used. - Marshman 17:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started an article at Plant sexuality. I've put all new stuff in to get a framework going, so anyone can move over the material from this article as time permits, although perhaps the first task is to make sure the angispermists do not dominate the text - Marshman 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary Definition

As dioecious is a term that can be applied to any organism, and not just plants, I didn't think it was appropriate to include an automatic redirect to plant sexuality. Anilocra 12:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why this was moved to dioeciousness, but I moved it back. Please discuss before further moves. --Chinasaur 17:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur, but how did you move it back -- I cannot find the history?. Isn't "dioeciousness" a made up word? What I really liked about Sally was her dioeciousness. Also, should not pages like this (a definition) simply be ported over to the Wikitionary? - Marshman 19:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, an improvement. But of course you can always word something so it does not look like a dictionary definition. So what? The litmus test is what kind of article makes sense to have and develop. I'll give it some time to see if an article can be developed, otherwise it is still just a word and its definition >>>>>> Wiktionary - Marshman 03:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Dioecious moving to Wiktionary together, presumably with Monoecious , Gynodioecious etc. etc. but I suspect that each of these need a re-direct page to Plant sexuality to avoid such pages being re-invented every few weeks. It might also be useful to have links to the Wiktionary definitions at the top of the Plant sexuality page. Velela 13:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If not at the top, then certainly as links within the text to the definitions at Wiktionary - Marshman 18:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving these articles to wiktionary is fine, however redirecting this article to plant sexuality is inappropriate - my worms are dioecious, but are not plants. Would a redirect to hermaphroditism be ok? Anilocra 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. We keep missing that! ;^) - Marshman 17:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)