Talk:Dioecy

Introduction

This should tell about the opposite term "monoecious" also.Tedtoal (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The majority of animal species[1] (for example, all mammals and most reptiles) are dioecious.[citation needed]" I'm not sure this makes sense... There is a citation after "The majority of animal species" which doesn't say anything, but a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence. If I have time this weekend, I'll look into it. Just thought I'd note it in case I forget.Dlpolanco (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-fertilisation.

"Dioecious species cannot self-fertilize." - I'm removing this line as I can think of at least one dioecious species - cannabis - that absolutely can self-fertilise. It does so by means of the female plant developing male parts and self pollinating. All her offspring will also be female but they too will usually be sexually viable. I've even heard of the male developing female parts but I don't know if it produced or could produce viable seed or viable offspring if so. I'm happy for someone to reinstate the line if they really feel the need, but please explain why in here if you do. Citations would be good. Jack of Many (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on your definition. A strictly dioecious species cannot self-fertilize. The fact that cannabis plants sometimes have both "male" and "female" organs (stamens and carpels) on the same plant shows that the species is not 100% dioecious, which seems to be true of many plant species typically regarded as dioecious. Plants are much more "fluid" in their development than animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna throw this out there not all cannabis are dioecious. Some are hermaphroditic.CycoMa (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of dioecious for animals: source needed

I have been unable to find a source which uses "dioecious" for animals, rather than "gonochoric". There really should be one to support the definitions relating to animals in this article.

(For those who make the "dioecious"/"dioicous" distinction, animals can't be dioecious, anyway, since this term refers to having individuals with only microsporangia or only megasporangia.)

I agree. I did a google scholar search on dioecy and all the articles it reported on the first page referred to the use of dioecy with regard to plants. If there is any substantial use of the word, dioecy, in a zoological context it should be possible to find the word in zoology papers or in a glossary of zoological terms. If that can't be found then perhaps consideration should be given to removing the zoological usage of the word from this article.--Davefoc (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to an online zoology glossary that has a definition of dioecious: http://animals.about.com/od/d/ and the article linked to in the Portuguese man of war image in the article uses the term dioecious --Davefoc (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of link to image illustrating the use of dioecius and monoecius in botany

Sminthopsis84 deleted the link in the external references sections. The comment attached to the deletion said "removed link that makes no mention of dioecy".

I wasn't sure what this meant. The image contains this caption: "dioecious(flower unisexual, males and females on separate plants). Did Sminthopsis84 object to the fact that the image used the adjective form of dioecy instead of exactly dioecy?

This is a link to the image: http://www.anbg.gov.au/glossary/webpubl/sexualit.jpg. I thought the image did a nice job of illustrating the three main possibilities and I obviously thought it was a worthwhile link since I added it. Would Sminthopsis84 please provide a little more information about his objection to the link?--Davefoc (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the image caption is just about unreadable on my screen. I see that the pixellated word is actually there. Put it back if you find that it works for you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this article

The article is currently classed as a "stub"; I think it's a bit more than that, but to be satisfactory it needs expanding significantly. For example, the technically incorrect use of "male" and "female" needs explaining. Since "monoecious" is used by botanists in two senses (either excluding or including bisexual flowers), when it's contrasted with "dioecious" this needs explaining.

The opposite term, Monoecy, is a redirect to Plant reproductive morphology. I'd be inclined to remove most discussion of plant dioecy, other than a couple of sentences, and then say "For dioecy in plants, see Plant reproductive morphology", since all the material is carefully explained there. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that suggestion, because explaining this material fully would work much better next to flowering plant Monoecy rather than isolated here. There is at least one more very different chunk that should be added here, dealing with dioecy and monoecy in fungi. I'm not sure how widespread that usage is; it has to do with the exchange of nuclei during karyogamy. Esser, K. (1971). "Breeding systems in fungi and their significance for genetic recombination". Molecular and General Genetics MGG. 110 (1): 86–100. doi:10.1007/bf00276051. (I hope you'll be offered the first two pages for free, the relevant material is at the end of page 2.) Another question would be how to properly integrate the zoological and mycological meanings of monoecy, which are as yet inadequately covered. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(And then, of course, there is the vexed question of whether mycology is a sub-discipline of botany or not, fungi being genetically closer to animals after all.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should a link to the Plant reproductive morphology article be substituted for the discussion of the botanical term dioecy in this article?

I weakly oppose this idea. Far and away the most common use of diecious is in the botanical context. I think an article about dioecy in the botanical sense has some value. People looking for straightforward information about the term would find value in an article about the term. However, I also see merit in your idea. It is not possible to discuss dioecy in plants without discussing monoecious and perfect flowers and that is an argument for your proposal.

use of male and female are technically wrong - not according to the APG II glossary: "male, e.g. of a flower that has functional staminate parts alone, = staminate." But you have a point there as well and if the text on the botanical use of the word remains the issues with the use of male and female in the botanical sense should be made clear.

Use of monecious in botany in two senses - On this I thought you were just wrong. I looked at five on line glossaries and a book that I have on plant terminology. Five of these six sources gave what I think is the standard botanical definition of the word. i.e. "having the staminate and carpellate reproductive structures in separate flowers but on the same plant". However, the glossary that I judged to be the second most authoritative (Kew Gardens glossary) defined the term in two ways. Still, I suspect the word is used rarely if ever in botanical papers to describe a taxon that has bisexual flowers. --Davefoc (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, these are the definitions that I found on line from sources that I thought were credible of monoecious

having the staminate and carpellate reproductive structures in separate flowers but on the same plant, - Angiosperm Phylogeny Website http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/

with all flowers bisexual, or with male and female flowers on the same plant - Kew Glossary http://www.kew.org/Glossary/monoecious.htm?prefix=m

having both male and female unisexual flowers on the same individual plant. cf. dioecious - FloraBase, The Western Australian Flora https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/help/glossary#M

Pertaining to a taxon in which individuals produce both male and female reproductive structures and do not produce bisexual reproductive structures (e.g., Alnus rhombifolia) - Jepson glossary http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/JM_glossary.html

Having stamens and pistils in separate flowers on the same plant. - GardenWeb http://glossary.gardenweb.com/glossary/monoecious

Flowers imperfect, the staminate and pistillate flowers borne on the same plant (compare dioecious) - Offline source Plant Identification Terminology by James and Melinda Harris

I agree that in practice by far the most common use is to treat bisexual, monoecious and dioecious as mutually exclusive. Indeed, when working on Plant reproductive morphology I at first thought that Beentje was simply wrong. But I did find some other sources using this definition, although they are not to hand immediately. Logically the Kew Glossary is correct, but when was botanical terminology decided by logic?! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the question I posed, why have an article on dioecy but not one on monoecy? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have come around to Peter coxhead's thinking on this a bit. I propose that the article cover the following material

1. general statement of what diocey is

2. use something common such as mammals as an example (using animals as an example avoids the male/female issue in plants, using mammals avoids the other complexities of something like the man of war)

3. state that hermaphrodite would be the opposite in a zoological context

4. the use of dioecy is unusual in a zoological context and the use of gonochory is more common

5. the use of diocey is most common with regard to plants

6. because of the alternation of generations in plants that staminate and carpellate would be used to formally refer to what are more commonly referred to as the male and female reproductive structures in plants

7. describe dioecy using the staminate and pistillate terminology from the APG definition

8. in the botanical sense of dioecy, there are more possibilities about the way that the reproductive structures of a taxon can be arranged than only dioecy and hermaphrodism

9. link to article Peter Coxhead suggested for further details about the arrangement of reproductive structures in plants

I don't mean by the above to advocate eliminating other material, however it seems like the details of the distribution of reproductive organs in a taxon are covered in detail already in other places for both plants and animals, this article should remain short, with the goal of describing the word in the general combined zoological and botanical senses and a reference to where the more detailed articles are.

much of this already exists in some form in the article however given Peter Coxheads suggestion about the elimination of details of dioecy in the botanical context I thought a bit of reorganization might be a good idea and a summary of the material the article should cover was justified. --Davefoc (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

davefoc's changes to the Botany section

I made quite a few changes to this section based on ideas from the previous discussions and because of the addition of a separate botany section to the article. This is a summary of the changes and why I made them.

1. Eliminate "Flowering plants" header The term, flowering plants, is often used as a synonym for the angiosperms. This section is about dioecy in botanical sense and the science of botany includes more than the study of angiosperms.

2. Addition of some common examples of dioecy in plants I thought this helped the reader relate to dioecy by listing a few plant species that he might be familiar with.

3. Mention of the dioecy category I thought the average reader that might want to get a general feel for the range of dioecy might not be aware of this category so I mentioned it.

4. Use of carpellate and staminate to describe dioecy I thought this was a useful way to provide a lead in to the more complicated discussion of the alternation of generations below it.

5. Addition of the Alternatives to dioecy section This was my cut at informing the reader that the situation was complicated in plants and to providing him a link if he wanted to know more. I thought this was consistent with Peter coxhead's suggestion.

6. Changes to Alternation of generations section I left this section mostly unchanged except to make it specifically about plants because it is in the botany section now.

7. Added a bit of discussion about plant groups in which dioecy is more common. It is my intention to expand this section a bit and perhaps discuss a bit about evolutionary origins of dioecy in plants. However before I did something like that I wanted to wait to see whether the changes I made were acceptable to the group involved in this discussion right now. --Davefoc (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you, but the changes you have made are not correct. Yes, "flowering plants" means "angiosperms". One of the problems with the page now is that "Dioecious plant species have the staminate (male) and carpellate (female) reproductive structures on separate plants" is not a true statement of all plants. There are no stamens or carpels on so many plants, ferns, bryophytes, conifers, ginkgos, cycads, not to mention the non-land plants such as charophytes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits which fix some of the issues you noted above. This is an illustration of the problem I started this section with: the reproductive morphology of plants as a whole (taking here "plants" to mean "land plants" or "embryophytes" and thus excluding charophytes) is so complex that almost any summary is bound to be wrong in some respect. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to argue. I made a mistake. The carpellate/staminate definition was from the APG site and for them Angiosperms are all there is and I didn't think about that. Unfortunately Peter coxheads fix was more of a cover up for my mistake than the right way to go I think. My thought is that carpellate and staminate need to be removed from the first sentence definition and we go with male and female. I think a little additional discussion would then be justified to say a few words about plant sexual structures in general mentioning perhaps the structures in groups that don't have stamens and carpels in addition to the angiosperm structures. Perhaps this could be worked into the alternation of generations section.--Davefoc (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see the better referencing and the explanation of "unisexual monoecious" removed that were in this version. The Kew Glossary online may be authoritative, but it is shoddily displayed without any publication details. The printed version is Beentje, H.; Williamson, J. (2010). The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better reference in earlier version: - I added back in the reference from the earlier version - There was an error in the Kew reference and I fixed that - I left the Kew reference in. I thought it was nice to have an online reference besides the book reference.

unisexual monoecious - I understand the purpose of putting unisexual in front of monoecious was to eliminate the ambiguity in the term, but I see it as problematic. 1. It is a term that seems to be seldom if ever used in botanical literature and thus it seems to be on the edge of wikipedia doing its own thing. 2. Despite the Kew definition of monoecious, in all other sources that I found monoeciious is consistently defined and it is limited to the situation where separate male and female reproductive structures exist on the same plant. Use of the term, unisexual monoecious suggests that this is not the situation.

original attempts to provide alternatives to dioecious - there were objections because of the ambiguity involved with the use of the word monoecious, and that the terms, male and female were not strictly correct with regard to plant reproductive structures and that the whole topic was covered more thoroughly some place else. I tried to take those objections into account when I edited the section. There is also the issue that alternatives to dioecy are not exactly limited to bisexual flowers and monoecy. I tried to remove the need to deal with these complexities by making the information less specific and by linking to another article which dealt with plant reproductive structures in a more general way.

I hoped that what I did was consistent with what appeared to be something of a consensus as to how the article should change. Perhaps I didn't succeed, but the above was my thinking as to the basis for the changes. --Davefoc (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dioecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505002541/http://www.kew.org/Glossary/dioecious.htm?prefix=d to http://www.kew.org/Glossary/dioecious.htm?prefix=d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

See phys.org article "How to be winner in the game of evolution" where the quantity of species in relation to traits is discussed. In the study the "best fit" included five traits: dioecy, parasitism, eyes/photoreceptors, a skeleton, nonmarine habitat. Which looks interesting here. However most of the variation encompassed by the five traits was down to only three not including dioecy. The study might be useful for a thorough read to see what could be said here. Shenme (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line contradicts is false

“An individual dioecious colony contains members of only one sex, whereas monoecious colonies contain members of both sexes.“

Monoicous is means “species that bear both sperm and eggs on the same gametophyte.“ CycoMa (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bad grammar. CycoMa (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternation of generations

That section needs work. It only uses one source and that source may not be the most reliable. Because it is from the 29 years ago.CycoMa (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole material about plants needs work. You can't understand the concepts independently. I will add more recent sources, if no-one else does, but getting it right is the first priority. The core material hasn't changed in 30 years! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: I've now re-written the whole section about plants, both to try to clarify it and to add more references. I could add other references from botany textbooks, etc. if you think more are needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that it is useful to repeat material here that is covered in more detail at Plant reproductive morphology, as opposed to simply directing readers to that article for information about dioecy in plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could move stuff from there over to here. And move stuff that doesn’t have much to do with dioecy over to there.

Or we can shorten some things down.CycoMa (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: all the articles related to "plant sexuality" (this one, Alternation of generations, Plant reproductive morphology) have proved difficult to get right, because the underlying material just is complex. Also there don't seem to be many knowledgeable botanists about now, compared to a few years ago.

WP:NPOV complicates things. Botanists do not all use the same terminology (although individual botanists often seem to think they do, or that the others are wrong). If we could write from just one viewpoint it would be much easier. As an example from this article, the diagram File:Monoecy dioecy en.svg is quite informative, but contains two disputed uses of terminology:

It uses the symbols ♂ and ♀, implying 'male' and 'female', whereas many sources are careful not to use these terms for plant sporophytes, preferring terms like 'staminate' and 'carpellate'/'pistillate' for flowers.
It treats hermaphrodite/bisexual flowers as not included within monoecious, which seems to be the majority view, but a substantial minority, including the Kew Glossary, use a broader view of 'monoecious', which does include them.

So if the diagram is used, to maintain NPOV requires explaining these differences in terminology, which is distracting. Hence I removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to make an article for the evolution of dioecy

There may be a good chance I may need to make a separate article for the evolution of dioecy. Like seriously I’m surprised how many sources cover this topic.CycoMa (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botany section very technical

I'm trying to understand more about some dioecious plants, so I looked up this article. The Botany section, especially the first paragraph, is difficult for this layman to understand. It uses too many technical terms. I assume that the information is correct, but if it is too difficult to comprehend, that is not enough. Please, somebody who knows this material well should rewrite this section. Pete unseth (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in plants is that you need to understand alternation of generations first. How much of this needs to be explained in this article is a difficult question. It doesn't help that the diagram showing alternation of generations ends up not close to the first paragraph.

I'm really not sure how to write a simpler but accurate general description. It may be possible to do so for a specific case, say holly, a dioecious flowering plant. Two kinds of flowers are produced on different plants, as shown in this image:

But to explain accurately what the different kinds of flower are involves the ideas of alternation of generations, diploid and haploid, spores versus gametes, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to simplify the material a bit. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for trying. technical subjects are difficult to explain to amateurs Pete unseth (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]