Talk:ABC model of flower development
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Desarrollo Floral from es.wikipedia. |
Class E
[edit]"In 2004 the characterization of sepallata1,2,3 triple mutant in Arabidopsis has led to the formulation of the ABCE model, which consider the importance of class E genes for the development of the floral organs."
Could somebody find the reference for this please, as it would greatly enhance this article, and I would personally be interested to read about it. Thank you. Zsingaya 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Lowercase?
[edit]Shouldn't the title of this page be "ABC model of flower development" rather than "ABC Model of Flower Development" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)? Kingdon (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Haughn and Somerville
[edit]The ABC Model of flower development was first proposed by George Haughn and Chris Somerville in 1988. Genetic control of plant morphogenesis. Developmental genetics 9:73-89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.191.56 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy
[edit]Most of the intro has been copied to Plant development. --Ettrig (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The plant development article should have a summary of the content here, not a copy. This is the primary article on the subject of the ABC model. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. The intro should be a summary. So what is the problem? --Ettrig (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean, besides the copying without attribution to the source, your typos, and failure to summarize? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I am not a mind reader, especially not when the target is at an unknown place probably far from me. So I answered about the problem that you thought you saw and commented, lack of summary. Since the intro should be a summary, copying the intro should result in putting in place a summary. If you don't think it is a proper summary, then you can of course improve it. But the problem you are then fixing is not mine. Wikipedia:Splitting says attribution can be made in the edit summary. That is what I did. So neither do I understand your complaint about without attribution. --Ettrig (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean, besides the copying without attribution to the source, your typos, and failure to summarize? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. The intro should be a summary. So what is the problem? --Ettrig (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- B-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
- B-Class Genetics articles
- Mid-importance Genetics articles
- WikiProject Genetics articles
- B-Class MCB articles
- Mid-importance MCB articles
- WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- B-Class plant articles
- High-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- Pages translated from Spanish Wikipedia