Disputatio:Plantae

About algas

According to the latest info, algas (seaweeds and weeds) are not considered as plants. ????

Latest? Who said so and when? Wgere is this info from? Teutonius 21:25, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC) The vide etiam items will be integrated in the biota page Teutonius 21:28, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Definitions with appellatur and dicitur instead of est

They're perhaps good for variety's sake, but their backwardness is uncomfortable. Right now, the first sentence,

Plantae (-ae, f.) hodie in biologia appellatur regnum complectens omnes res viventis, eukaryoticas, autotropicas, et multicellulares, quae per chloroplasta lucem capiunt.

Anglice reads:

The kingdom embracing all living things, eukaryotes, autotropics, and multicellulars, which through their chloroplasts capture light is today in biology called plants.

That seems a strange way of putting it, but maybe I need more coffee this morning. ¶ Similarly now the first sentence of Animalia. IacobusAmor 11:52, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Plantae should be translated "the plants", which is a technical term in latin. The classical meaning of this term is "transplant"; however, Ernestus Haeckel used it to designate the kingdom of plants (as today conceived) which excludes the fungi and algi. By contrast Linneaus defined the kingdom Vegetabilia to include also algae and fungi and plant-like single-celled organisms. Eukaryotica is the adjectival form of Eukaryon (pl. eukaryota) so Anglice :

The kingdom embracing all living things, eukaryotic, autotropic, and multicellular, which through their chloroplasts capture light is today in biology called the plants.

--Rafaelgarcia 12:01, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough in those particulars, but what I'm saying is that the first sentences of articles ordinarily take the form

A are B.

(where A is the subject and B is its complement), but thus using appellatur and dicitur makes the form

B is called A.

(where B is the subject and A is its complement). It's the backwardness of this form that puzzles, at least at this hour of the morning. Because of ordinary expectations about how lemmata function, some nonexpert readers will almost certainly take A (not B) to be the subject and then wonder why the verb is appellatur instead of appellantur. IacobusAmor 12:11, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Good point. I have to think about that.--Rafaelgarcia 12:19, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

For these termini technici, it would be much easier to avoid unsual orderings if the lemma were singular. Is it advisable to name the page with the plural and use the singular in the lemma for these biological pages?--Rafaelgarcia 12:25, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I suggest some flexibility is necessary in articles on high-level taxonomy and there is reason for doing it the original way (I mean, the sentence to which Iacobus objected at the outset!) Let me explain. Whatever happens later in the article, there's a case for saying at the outset "Plantae is the name of a group" (or, literally, "A group is called Plantae"). Because that's the first point, really. Whether the group is a real unity may have to be discussed later. If we start out by saying that the group is, we're taking a point of view. If we say it is called, we're neutral. I think. Perhaps I need more coffee too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)