Talk:Arabidopsis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Petra Sen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabidopsis vs Arabidopisis thaliana[edit]

I noticed that there is significant overlap between the Arabidopsis thaliana page and this (Arabidopsis) page. I think this might lead to confusion with people coming into wikipedia to edit this Arabidopsis page or linking to the incorrect page. I propose we strip out the thaliana specific info on the this page or merge the two together. If we keep them separate this page should discuss the whole genus and redirect to the Arabidopsis thaliana page for specific infomation about the genetic model system.David D. 16:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished a massive edit of this page to try and avoid confusion with the Arabidopsis thaliana page. I also redirected pages linking to the Arabidopsis page that were intended to link directly to the Arabidopsis thaliana page. I hope this edit fits within the TOL guidelines David D. 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pathogens of Arabidopsis that are well documented? 207.127.143.101 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is yes. Most researchers us A. thaliana but I assume that there is cross over. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

I think a list is a good way to organise information about species within the genus, I fail to see why'd you want to convert it to prose. Narayanese (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have a list of species as prose? It makes no sense, was the tag placed by a bot? David D. (Talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was added by an IP with only three edits. That means we cannot even clarify the intent. I think we should just remove it. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chromosome number[edit]

The piece of information below 'Cytogenetics' needs some adjustments -in my opinion.

Recapitulation:
'n' chromosomes is the haploid number of chromosomes (=one copy of each different chromosome).
'2n' chromosomes is the diploid number of chromosomes (=two copies of each different chromosome).
'4n' chromosomes is the tetraploid number of chromosomes (=four copies of each different chromosome).

I think for clarification the following line should say:

A. suecica is n=5+8 and is an amphidiploid species originated through hybridization between A. thaliana and diploid A. arenosa.

A. arenosa always has n=8. A. arenosa can be 2n or 4n. the number of different chromosomes isn't different between the subspecies, the number of copies is.

so the following line should say:

Various subspecies of A. lyrata and A. arenosa can be either 2n (diploid) or 4n (tetraploid).

Based on the rest of the alinea, the following line should say:

Cytogenetic analysis has shown that the haploid chromosome number (n) is variable and can be 5, 8, and 13.

If no one has objections, I will make the few changes.

--Zaluzar (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

timeliness: someone please edit wording[edit]

Under "Status," a paragraph begins with "In the past two decades...."

Will someone who intimately knows the situation please RE-WORD this? No Wikipedia page should have a reference like that; it should, instead, say "Since 1991..." or "Since the mid-1990s..." so the article will remain current into the future without later edits.

Thanks, -pt philiptdotcom (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good start to content, though needs improvement re-organization[edit]

Links are in good working order, though I would suggest removing the links peppered throughout the article that lead to creating articles for the genera mentioned. These are misleading links (I thought it would take me to a page explaining what the terms were) and are therefore unnecessary until the pages are actually created. The links to unfamiliar vocabulary is great because time and space isn't wasted explaining terms readers can grasp through reading whole other articles about the topic.

Though the information included is relevant, the entirety of the "Cytogenetics" section desperately needs to be sourced. From where in the world did this knowledge come? There is a lot of relevant, neat information in sources mentioned that would provide substantial background and detail information about this genus that should be included in this article.

I agree with the previously mentioned suggestion in "Cleanup Tag" of putting the species and subspecies information in a chart. It would make the information easier to read, therefore better conveying the information (the ultimate goal of the article). I also agree with philiptdotcome that vague terms such as "in the last two decades" and "currently" should be replaced with more tangible terms such as "between x and x" and "as of x date" to increase relevance of the information. A map of shaded regions where this genus can be found would be a helpful visual aid too.

Petra Sen (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Petra Sen[reply]

Questionable edits[edit]

I'm not sure about these two [1] [2] edits from 2014. Certainly is cleaved . is badly typed, but the rest of it may be correct or incorrect. I don't have time to read all the necessary sources at the moment. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]