Talk:Amborella

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rmccann15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed the sentence "Such a family has been recognised by many taxonomists, at least after the plants were discovered, which was relatively recently." It is ambiguous and not in agreement with other information about the plant in Wikipedia. The single species in the Amborellaceae, Amborella trichopoda Baill., was described in the botanical literature by the 19th C. French botanist Henri Ernest Baillon. KP Botany 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

This article ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08flower.html?_r=2&8dpc ) says some of the same things as in the Wiki article, and might make a good reference? I'm not sure if NYT articles still go offline after a few weeks, though, for non-members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.178 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I vote no. The pages are different enough in content. Nessie (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it may be worth having two articles, but at present there's un-necessary duplication between the two. I would suggest that the phylogeny is discussed under the family and the plant described under the genus. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general that's the division we like, genus and species articles focus on the observable characteristics of the taxon at hand, family and up focus on phylogeny and the current state of the systematics debate. A little redundancy is inevitable, for the sake of good composition, but one article can have a sentence and link to the other for the paragraph or section that goes into more depth. Stan (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems very reasonable to me. Nessie (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, that kind of topical separation doesn't apply to a group that's monotypic, only to larger groups with more taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. We usually do not have multiple articles for monotypic taxa. If we want to have a separate article on the phylogeny of Amborella, then that should be the title. Calling the phylogeny article by the family name is misleading and unhelpful. However, there is not enough information between the two article to warrant such a separation, so I support merging the existing content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an occasional casual reader of such articles, I like having separate articles for taxa even when they're monotypic. As I'm browsing the families in an order, it's disconcerting to get bumped down to the species level. On the other hand, there's something to be said for being consistent about it either way. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to genus article According to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (Ranks) -"when a taxon contains only a single member, both taxon and member are usually treated in a single article" and "If a family contains only one genus, the article is still named after the genus, as, generally speaking, genus names are more familiar and receive more usage than family names" Melburnian (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to genus article Although in April 2010 I was rather against the merge, I'm now in favour, having done more editing myself. Although more short articles may be easier for readers, what happens in practice if you have separate articles which could reasonably be merged is that (a) information is duplicated between them (b) this information is then edited and updated separately and becomes increasingly inconsistent. So wherever it is in line with policy and consensus, I am now in favour of mergers. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article can easily accommodate the phylogeny info from Amborellaceae. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Melburnian. I've been wanting to merge this for years, but never got around to proposing it. Kingdon (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged content of articles and Talk pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Division

why don't we say its in the division "amborellophyta", class "amborellopsida",order "amborales", family "amborellaceae". its not pointlessly redundant, just good fun with suffixes.

It's not the type genus for the magnoliophyta. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks the vessels?

The article says "Its wood lacks the vessels characteristic of most flowering plants." I assume that the plant still transports water from root to leaf; what does the plant use in place of vessels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.26.209 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracheids. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the citations are actually never referenced. Citations 2 and 3 are not referenced in this wikipedia article. The link for number 6 directs the page to a French website, which I cannot understand. Several links do not lead to anywhere, or cannot be found these are as follows: 5, 9, 10, 18, and 23. Certain links only lead to abstracts or to websites to purchase the articles/books. Those are as follows: 7, 15, 19, 20, and 22. Some articles referenced also appear ot have bias. Reference citation 16, the article itself seems a bit biased, which is not noted in the wikipedia article. The link to 17 leads to a location that is biased, it almost sounds as if it is trying to convince you to donate, simply because they claim to be so advanced. 21 also seems a bit biased. It almost seems like the author is trying to entertain rather than inform. Rebekah Bare˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccann15 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal practice to have citations from the taxobox (2 and 3) listed along with those from the body of the article. The French article isn't really about Amborella, so I think it would be good to find better alternatives. Unfortunately, authoritative articles are usually not accessible in their entirety online. Still, some improvements are possible here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six to one ratio

Is this for sure?

Sequencing the Amborella mitochondrial genome revealed that for every gene of its own origin, it contains about six versions from the genomes of an assortment of the plants and algae growing with or upon it. The evolutionary and physiological significance of this is not as yet clear, nor in particular is it clear whether the horizontal gene transfer has anything to do with the apparent stability and conservatism of the species.

It's got two references, .... the first says

“For every native gene, it contains six foreign copies of that gene, acquired from a range of land plants and green algae.”

which is similar but not exactly the same as what we have. I cant get to the paper that's in the second reference, but the abstract says

We report the complete mitochondrial genome sequence of the flowering plant Amborella trichopoda. This enormous, 3.9-megabase genome contains six genome equivalents of foreign mitochondrial DNA, acquired from green algae, mosses, and other angiosperms.

which is still not the same as what we have. I note, though, the first reference is quoting verbatim from the second. —Soap— 20:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amborella&oldid=1212128484"