Talk:Plant evolutionary developmental biology

hi This page is still largely incomplete, there's lots more to be put in this. if you are interested in adding new content to this page or simply giving ideas, please join the group and discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plant Evo Devo. Gauravm1312 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Wat up[reply]

errors in picture[edit]

in line 2 it is written Gycine (instead of the correct form Glycine) the resolution of the gif is very low and bad quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.68.45 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

following things need to be added[edit]

1) evolution of vasculature - xylem, phloem

2) evolution of seeds and fruits

3) differences and similarities between evo-devo of animals and plants

4) appropriately added links to evolution of chloroplasts, photosystems and photosynthesis. maybe create a new entry on evolution of photosynthesis

5) evolution of root architectures

Gauravm1312 (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels between animal and plant evolution[edit]

1) homeotic genes - Hox genes, KNOX. segmental genes different in plants - MADS Box

2) polycomb genes repress homeotic genes in later phases of development

3) mechanisms of evolution more or less remain similar

4) morphogen gradients - Drosophila embryonic development, wing development, leaf development, flower development. examples of morphogen gradients.

5) Epigenetic mechanisms exist - vernalization, repression of homeotic genes

Gauravm1312 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with evolutionary history of plants[edit]

This article has significant overlap with evolutionary history of plants - something I hadn't realised when writing that article. I feel that this page as it stands strays a long way from evo-devo; it would probably be useful to move things that aren't related to development to the e.h.of p. article, to avoid repetition. Smith609 Talk 08:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of both the articles are quite different. Evolutionary history of plants is more from a systematics and ecological perspective, this deals more with developmental programs and molecular aspects. I also feel the focus is more or less consistent, however can be bettered. I'd suggest cross-linking different sections for a more comprehensive perspective. Veryhuman (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 15 years on, this article still seems to spend a lot of time on evolutionary history, and not very much time on evo-devo. It ought to be focused on its subject (WP:GACR 3b). That probably means cutting out a lot of the non-evo-devo, and adding and updating the parts that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

errors in text[edit]

In the opening paragraph, the sentence states: "Evo-devo rose as a separate branch of science only in the last decade." This statement is problematic and vague. Even if one accepts the definition of "a new branch of science" given by the linked reference, the statement is out of date as 1999 was more than a decade ago. Imnotamouse (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aciphylla.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Aciphylla.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Aciphylla.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]