From Bvio

Why did we drop "bisexual"? If that isn't going to be mentioned here, we should probably change the bisexual article. --User:Chinasaur

Nothing dropped. I took the paper of definitions as "modified" by Molnar and altered it in a direction that would cover more than just the angiosperms. But I can see lots more needs to be added to the definitions to complete that task alone. So, do not consider what is up there now as any kind of "last word". Indeed, I already see a valid conflict with MPF's definition for sub-dioecious in conifers that will need to get fixed here. What is up there seems like a good place to start, in part because the system considers whether one is talking about sex organs, plants (individuals), or species populations, a source of some of the problems we have experienced in working out differences we each feel - Marshman 00:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the confusion of terms, especially the problem with subdioecy, I think we're going to be better off splitting this into separate stuff for angiosperms and conifers. It's too bad since the terminology does overlap a good bit, but in the end I think there's too much inconsistency to try to deal with both groups at once. I don't really want to start two separate articles. I think we can deal with it successfully by first introducing the simpler conifer terminology and then launching into the angiosperm stuff. Also, are we planning to leave things in this list form, or break things out into full sentences a little more once we have a better handle on the whole system? I would prefer to include more full sentences at some later point. What do you think? --Chinasaur 18:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we want two articles. The user is much better served by seeing both consistencies and inconsistencies in terminology in one place. We just need to be sure we explain where differences exist. I do prefer to leave the list form but to have complete sentences and as much explanation as needed under each item in the list. The list becomes an outline, and that becomes a framework, within which to expound to whatever level is required. It often turns out, where such expounding becomes too much, that opening another article or area in the same article becomes obvious from the direction the discourse is taking, and you end up reducing back to a simple definition within the list area under terminology and develping that direction elsewhere. - Marshman 02:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about separating the conifer and angiosperm stuff though? I have in my head a much clearer article based on this division; explain simple conifer situation first, gives people a nice, simple(r), biologically relevant introduction. Then jump on into angiosperm stuff, where it gets more complicated and introduces a lot of specific terminology without having to say "only for angiosperms" every time. Unless there are objections I will work on this when I have time middle of next week. --Chinasaur 18:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I really think that would be counter productive. Botanists are botanists. There is no confusion here. The differences in uses of any terms (which are very minor at this point) will be resolved. Remember, the typical user of Wikipedia is NOT a specialist in conifers or angiosperms or anything else. The audience does not need, and can not possibly benefit by spliting articles about general botanical topics (this is one) into "here is what conifer specialists think, but go here if you want what flowering plant specialists think." That would only increase the confusion and require that each article make an untrue statement such as "the following is only what angiosperm botanist (no such animal) believe, but not necessarily what fern (or conifer) botanists believe. You could alway go to the article on conifers (or whatever) and do your "specific" terminology stuff. This article is just fine as it stands and should apply to all plants. - Marshman 04:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really having trouble expressing myself lately... I meant to make separate sections in this article, not two completely separate articles. It really wouldn't change this article very much since an introductory section on conifers would be quite short. --Chinasaur 16:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, while there should be separate sub-sections under Evolution and perhaps other topics on this page, it would be a mistake at this time to think there is a separtate terminology being used by persons specializing in conifers vs. angiosperms. I do not see it - Marshman 17:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought the terminology was distinguishable. Subdioecious apparently means different things between the two groups, there is much terminology only applied to angiosperms, and the sexuality issue is just much simpler for conifers. Anyway, I don't think the kind of change I'm thinking of is as drastic as you are thinking, so I'll look at it and maybe try it and you can see what you think. --Chinasaur 00:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although technically there are no "angiosperm only" terms, obviously each group has a range limited by the kinds of reproductive structures present, and flowers only occur on angiosperms. Also, while I'm accepting that what we have for subdioecious is indicative of a difference of opinion between one group of botanists and another, it would be concluding that each is officially correct to separate them too much. "Official" definitions of this term is something I've not seen for either side. It could be that the gymnosperm paper being cited uses the terminology in a way no one else accepts. Or it could be a new definition that is slowly gaining acceptance. The way we present it now is how it should be presented, with an example publication and brief discussion. This does not mean there cannot be separate Angiosperm/Gymnosperm discussions in the article about the subject of Plant Sexuality (as I've started under Evolution). I would just caution you to avoid making too much of the definition of one word on the basis of what we presently have. - Marshman 18:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Below is a summary of outstanding questions I/we have on terminology. Please update as you discover more solid information (or add more confused ambiguities); put authoritative answers in bold and use strikethroughs to cancel incorrect/inappropriate remarks:

1. Hermaphrodite (cone/flower level): does such a thing exist in conifers, or are all conifers monoecious or dioecious (or subdioecious)? From everything I have read so far, this is only angiosperms. It would simplify a lot if we can agree on this. - Correct, conifers (and the other gymnosperms) are never hermaphroditic - MPF And I think that may hold for the majority of lower plants (ferns, mosses) as well - Marshman - - - Difficult this one; in vascular cryptogams (ferns, clubmosses, horsetails, etc) the sporophyte generation one sees (a fern, for example) is asexual; their sex takes place in the gametophyte generation, the prothallus, which is a small, inconspicuous object with haploid cells; . Of non-vascular plants, I'm not sure. These groups have different terminology again, and I'd say they need separate treatment. MPF Of course the terms would not apply to a sporphyte fern; I disagree about 'separate treatment' as this article is about Plant sexuality. But we should not simply extend the terms to other groups unless specialists in those groups use the terms. Under moss there is mention of dioicious and monoiceous.
2. Subdioecy: what condition does this actually describe? Is it a single, clearly defined thing in angiospems and a different single, clearly defined thing in conifers, or is it just a mess? My current understanding is:
   1. In conifers it is intermediate between monoecious and dioecious with a mostly male cone tree producing some female cones and vice-versa (Again, if conifers are never hermaphrodite at the cone/flower level then this is simple). - I did a search of the internet for "subdioecous" and "conifer", and the only matches were web sites that have copied our Wikipedia pages. I have very few books on hand covering conifers, but those that do, speak only of monoecious and dioecious (does not rule out subdioecious for conifers; could be a recent term). I'm open to including the consideration that some conifers might be subdioecious, but would be more comfortable if I could see that term used in references covering conifer species - Marshman 21:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) - - - It is of relatively recent use in conifers, not very widespread (mainly because not many conifers show it conspicuously). The first use of the term for conifers that I'm aware of is J. McCormick & J. W. Andresen (1963), A subdioecious population of Pinus cembroides in southeast Arizona Ohio J. Science 63: 159-163. More generally though, research is showing it is very hard to pin down conifers precisely to monoecious or dioecious, as there is in reality a full spectrum between the two. Very few (if any?) conifers are strictly 100% dioecious, it is almost always possible to find one or more (or most) individuals producing occasional cones of the "wrong" sex, or a single branch all the wrong sex; some also change sex expression over time, either partly or completely. Conversely, there are few (if any?) conifers which are strictly 100% monoecious, all individuals producing male and female in the same ratio; in a population there will always be some trees that produce few male and lots of female (or vice-versa), even though the species is considered monoecious. If there has been any trend in usage, it has been to call a species monoecious, unless it is absolutely 100% dioecious (i.e. no observations ever of even one tree producing cones of both sexes); thus labelling a full spectrum all monoecious except for the extreme at one end of the spectrum. Personally, I think this is confusing (and ultimately trying to prove a negative!), as it means having to call a lot of conifers monoecious even though they are very close to fully dioecious; I think it would be better to consider many (most?) conifers subdioecious, to a greater or lesser degree. - MPF I can agree with you, except that the definition of subdioecious (right now in the article) does not fit the situation you describe. Perhaps our approach needs to be to somehow note that conifer biologists do not follow the definition as presented by the flowering plant guys. - Marshman 00:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) OK, I added in the sense you are expressing above for subdioecious (fix how you like). We can let it hang out and see what interest it draws from others - Marshman
   2. In angiosperms, it describes something intermediate between bisexual and unisexual flowers, but whether this implies some bisexuality on an otherwise monoecious plant, or some bisexuality on an otherwise dioecious plant I can't figure out. - Yes to first part, maybe no to second. It is intermediate between bisexual and dioecious ("sub" means below or almost) in that there are male and female plants, but also some that have perfect flowers. But this raises an interesting point. If a population included male and female plants, but some individual plants had both male and female flowers (i.e., were monoecious) that would fit the conifer situation and seems like trioecious is a good term for that - Marshman 21:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Diclinous: does this, as I have said in the article for the time being, include anything with any unisexual flowers, or only something with nothing but unisexual flowers. - All I can find so far suggests it is a synonym for unisexual - Marshman
4. Androgynous: I've seen it on the web as a synonym for hermaphrodite, but I haven't seen it in any books and it's kind of a crappy term.- You may well be right. My only problem is that the article androgynous has nothing in it that would pertain. But this situation could change by adding other definitions over there.

I'll check all these out as I have time. I'm supposed to be working (as in "making a salary") right now! 8^) - Marshman 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Overall I'd say our early disputes and the current mess are not our faults; it seems this terminology was pretty loose when we got to it, so if we can bring any order to this I think we deserve to congratulate ourselves... Okay, let's see if we can clear some of this up... --Chinasaur 18:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I agree on that. We are still likely to encounter controversy in some terms, but having this page with all the options laid out will serve us well into a "consistent" future. - Marshman

List of articles to fix

Here's all the articles that will have to be tweaked/redirected once we get this right. (Add as necessary.):

Flower, Bisexual, Monoecious, Dioecious, Monoclinous, Diclinous, Perfect

I have been working on these. I just finished up Flower (and tweeked Bisexual, and Monoecious earlier) Some that are not articles should be created at Wikitionary - Marshman 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)