Talk:Taxonomy of wheat

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Wheat#Hulled versus free-threshing species|Wheat: Hulled vs. free-threshing wheat]] The anchor (#Hulled versus free-threshing species) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

genone

"In the 1950s growing awareness of the genetic similarity (including some shared genones) of the wild goatgrasses"

should this sentence contain "genone" or "genome". Andrius 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mansfield Link

[1] seems to work now .. Sancassania 01:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Mark Nesbitt 07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution under artificial selection

@{U|Nyth83}}: The Berkeley 'Understanding Evolution' site states explicitly: "Farmers and breeders allowed only the plants and animals with desirable characteristics to reproduce, causing the evolution of farm stock. This process is called artificial selection because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce." Evolution proceeds whether humans are involved or not: all humans can do is to apply an additional pressure, and organisms respond by evolving to adapt to that changed situation, exactly as with evolution in the wild. You have perhaps become confused by artificial vs natural selection, but it's evolution in either case.

Evolution of Wheat: "Human intervention must also have played an important role in the evolution of the cultivated wheats and would have been associated with the neolithic shift from an economy based on hunting and gathering to a system based on food production through the domestication of plants and animals."

Evolution of Polyploid Triticum Wheats under Cultivation: "The evolution of the polyploid Triticum wheats is distinctive in that domestication, natural hybridization and allopolyploid speciation have all had significant impacts on their diversification."

Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just more obfuscation on what biological evolution is and what it is not. The word 'evolve' has numerous dictionary meanings, most of them have nothing to do with biology. It is probably best to avoid the use of the words 'evolve' and 'evolution' in this context. The Wikipedia article on Evolution does not discuss artificial selection except in the context of computer science. People talk about the 'evolution of the automobile'. There are numerous problems with this, first, the attempt to make analogy with biological evolution is that automobiles are not self reproducing. Second this is actually a prime example of 'intelligent design'. I actually heard Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, state in an interview that Linux is a perfect example of evolution in action. He was referring to the continual updates and changes made by user submissions for inclusion. Again, this is a actually an example of intelligent design, not evolution. 'Developed' is a perfectly acceptable word here and avoids giving the impression that the primary mechanism is naturally Darwinian which the article clearly states that it is not.Nyth 63 12:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is the plain meaning as understood in evolutionary biology as shown by the "Evolution of Polyploid Triticum Wheats under Cultivation" cited above. It does not matter what some other Wikipedia article does or does not discuss, it is not a reliable source. Please read the paper and see for yourself. Here is a quote from a journal paper to show how biologists see this:

In this paper, we reviewed the current advances in research and utilization of the primary SHW lines and SHW‐derived wheat varieties that have enhanced evolution of modern wheat under conditions of natural and artificial selection in southwestern China. Li, Wan, and Yang 2014

and here is a quote from a textbook, Wheat: Science and Trade:

The evolution of the genus Triticum mainly resulted from inter- and intra-specific hybridization, polyploidization, and recurrent formation of wheat and its wild relatives... the process of species domestication and genome evolution that has occurred and is still occurring within the primary, secondary, and tertiary gene pools is critical for further exploring the improvement of wheat production.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense yourself. Now you are repeating youself. The point is that the target audience of Wikipedia is NOT academics and professional biologists. Wikipedia is not intended as a textbook. One could argue that the entire artcle should be deleted under WP:NOTJOURNAL or WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. It is rather dense and full of jargon. Nyth 63 16:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Far from "nonsense" or "obfuscation", I have demonstrated from reliable sources that evolution is indeed what is taking place in wheat, which was the question: it's basic to the article. If you find argument from sources too trying, Wikipedia is certainly the wrong place for you. The word "evolution" is not some tricky phrase only intelligible to "academics and professional biologists", but the most important idea in the whole of biology: as Dobzhansky rightly said, nothing in biology makes sense without it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also beginning to wonder if the entire article is copied from the cited sources and should be checked for WP:COPYVIO and deleted. The complete lack of inline citations is a red flag. Nyth 63 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry. A copyvio check gives a "Violation unlikely" result with a remarkable 0.0% belief that a copyvio has occurred. It's the lowest possible value. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)X[reply]

Wow, that's amazing. A bot that does not even check the sources that are cited directly in the article. Seems pretty useless and dubious. Even funny that it is checking an English language article against French and German sites that do not show the articles they are linking to, and at least two broken links. A least one of the linked 'articles' is just tables with no verbiage. Rather remarkable that it could not find any matches there. The Kansas State University link even goes to 'Page not Found'. Completely meaningless test. This does not not prove that there is no copyvio, only that the bot is extremely limited in non-mainstream contexts on rather esoteric subjects like this. Nyth 63 01:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref date

Hello @Keith D: The Kansas State ref says Updated: 2/6/19. Although that is ambiguous it is shown on ref. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)

At first glance I could not see the date on the archive page linked to, a search for it found at the bottom, but still unsure what is meant 2 June or 6 February. Keith D (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Comprise

@Giraffedata: Merriam-Webster says this has been said so long it may have stopped being incorrect. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/can-you-use-comprised-of-grammar Invasive Spices (talk) 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is much more accepted now than it used to be. But I don't think there's any point in discussing whether something in English is correct or not; it's not like we're grading school papers here. I'm just looking for the best possible wording, and when you consider all the people who still believe it's always wrong to use comprise in that newer sense, and the alternatives that are universally accepted, it's a no-brainer to choose one of those alternatives. There is much more discussion about whether "comprised of" is a good thing to use in Wikipedia, including the matter of its growing popularity and correctness, in my exhaustive essay on the subject. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]