From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add the vernacular names listed below[edit]

| bn=উদ্ভিদ

| hi=पादप

| ml=സസ്യം

| mr=वनस्पती

| new=मा (बोट्यानी)

| pa=ਪੌਦੇ

bn: উদ্ভিদ

hi: पादप

ml: സസ്യം

mr: वनस्पती

new: मा (बोट्यानी)

pa: ਪੌਦੇ


old talk[edit]

why is the es: vernacular name "plantae", isn't that latin (it's not a spanish word) planta (plant) is singular plantas the plural

I thought vernacular meant "as used by common people", and thus it should be plantas

Because it links to the Spanish article on Plantae, the taxonomic division. There appears to be a separate article in the Spanish Wikipedia on planta, and a template indicating the two should be combined. Tuf-Kat 07:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the newly updated APGII taxonomic breakdown should be used for the flowering plants section. M1shawhan 02:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do sincerely agree. This is probably the only consistent taxonomy available, and furthermore, the inconsistence of the taxonomy of Wikispecies is one of the main arguments at the Dutch wikipedia (nl:Overleg_sjabloon:Taxobox_section_classis_simple_test). Ucucha 18:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As one of the opponents of the proposed link to species: on nl: some of my objections are:
  • The aim of wikispecies remains unclear. What is the aim? To provide all possible taxonomies? Or to provide the most current taxonomy? I asked this question far back and still havent seen any definite answer. The discussion at Wikispecies:Village pump#Phylogenetics ends without a clear decision.
  • The aim of how the wikis should utilize species remains unclear. For commons, we can simply put up a link to an image or other media file. Afaik, there is no such link. If, for example, there would be a way to make a language dependant import of the species taxonomy box in the nl:article, it might have an advantage. Might, as I guess it is more trouble to update species with language dependant info than to adapt a taxobox from another species in the same genus.
  • On nl: we rigidly follow APG II, mostly thanks to user:Pethan. The material species has on plantae, is mostly imported from nl: by user:Wezy. If the rest gets imported from en: I fear for a mess. The germans follow another taxonomy, (Armen Takhtajan, Diversity and Classification of Flowering Plants, 1997). I dont know about the French.
  • Most links created to species from the dutch plant articles are completely empty. Species doesnt have anything yet (oversimplification, i know). And no, I'm not gonna fill them. The ususal reply "because you didnt fill them" is a trap. I'm commited to the dutch wiki, the african wiki, the platt wiki and to some extant the english and german wikis. I actively contribute to commons.
  • As long as most links from nl: lead nowhere, it just confuses visitors. (It did confuse me)
  • Until species offers something the dutch wiki doesnt have yet, such a link is imho prematurely.

TeunSpaans 06:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

On the APG-system and Taxonomy[edit]

This wikispecies is quite confusing if you work with botany as there is no distinction between "systematics" and "taxonomy"! The wiki seem to follow the taxonomic rules of ICBN as the Linnean hierarchies are used throughout. But when looking at the level of order and below a lot of the contributions are relating to the APG system (of which APG 2 is the latest published update and the Angiosperm Phylogeny Web is a concurrent web-based update by Peter F. Stevens). What to note in this context is that the APG deals only with systematics and propose no taxonomy at all. The APG system deals only with the circumscription of orders and families, and have left the field of hierarchical taxonomy behind. The present ICBN code makes it very complicated to infer the Linnean hierarchies above order if you want to have a botanical system that reflects evolution (as believed by molecular inference in conjuncture with classical botany) and strives for naming only monophyletic groups (as the APG-systems). The simplest solution to the problem for the angiosperms would be to delete all ranks between "Magnoliophyta" and the orders - as is the fact of the APG system - but this would pose a lot of questions from "old-school botanists" and the "common-man botanist".

content on hold for move to wikipedia[edit]

Plants are usually autotrophic organisms characterised by a holophytic mode of nutrition. Most, but not all, are dependant on the possession of chlorophyll. In fact, the largest flower on earth is produced by Rafflesia arnoldii, an epiparasite and therefore a heterotroph. The Indian Pipe (Monotropa uniflora) is one example of a saprotrophic, but not parasitic, plant. There are about 300,000 known species of plant in the world. They are the main food source for many other lifeforms.


  • Non-vascular plants
    • Chlorophyta are primitive green algae.
    • Charophyta are the higher green algae, paraphyletic to all the following divisions which comprise the 'land plants'.
    • Anthocerophyta are hornworts.
    • Bryophyta are mosses.
    • Hepatophyta are liverworts.
  • Vascular plants without seeds
    • Equisetophyta are horsetails.
    • Lycopodiophyta are club mosses.
    • Ophioglossophyta are adders-tongue ferns.
    • Psilotophyta are wisk ferns.
    • Pteridophyta are "true" ferns.
  • Seed plants
    • Cycadophyta are cycads.
    • Ginkgophyta are ginkoes.
    • Gnetophyta are gnetophyes.
    • Pinophyta are conifers.
    • Magnoliophyta are flowering plants, (Angiosperms).

Amaryllis vittata picture[edit]

MadBadger 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC) If the topic here is species we should at least have a properly named species as an illustration. It is Hippeastrum vittatum not Amaryllis vitatta.


Plant in a pot[edit]

Wouldn't it be better, to feature for the regnum page, a picture of a specimen that is not in a natural habitat such a a flowerpot? --thanks


I am confused. Why is Equisetophyta unlisted?

The system used here, Smith et al. 2006, placed Equisetopsida as a class in Pteridophyta per molecular phylogeny. --Kevmin 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't its translation be Plantae, seeing as the vernacular names are in plural referring to plants collectively? -- Cbf536 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cymraeg: Planhigyn is singular[edit]

The Welsh (Cymraeg) word "planhigyn" is the singular noun "plant". Because the list is "Plants" plural, the correct word is Planhigion. I cannot edit this page as I have done for Fungi etc. so I hope that someone will correct the error. Thanks Jones the Plant