Talk:Thorns, spines, and prickles

Merger proposal

Thorn (botany), Spine (botany), and Prickle (botany) are all very short articles which cover a lot of the same ground. How about combining them in a single article which emphasis the comparative "points" (pun intended)? bd2412 T 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one raises an objection in the next week, I'm going to "stick" these three together. Haha. bd2412 T 23:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etmologically, thorn derives from horn, spine from spike, and prickle from pike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.117.19.50 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. Although EtymOnline shows that spine and spike are likely related, that doesn't mean that one actually comes from the other; just that they both come from a now-lost third root. —Soap— 22:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose Prickles.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rose Prickles.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 21, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is a stub. Not quite as stubby as the three formerly separate articles on thorns, spines, and prickles, but not exactly ready for a GA review. I suppose some information on the evolutionary history of these features would be good to have, and additional botanical guidance as to the types of plants which tend to have particular types of pointed defenses. bd2412 T 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

There are too many commas in the title. Doesn't need to be one before the "and" in this instance, so I'll move it. Any objections and just move it back. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to moving it, but I do object to a cut-and-paste move which breaks up the edit history of the article. bd2412 T 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, I'd have left out the last comma, but it's here. Technically it's probably covered by WP:ENGVAR. Since the appropriate redirect exist, I'd prefer to leave it where it is. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

The style of the page is not authoritative. What is a "boma" supposed to be? Trivial examples clutter the main discussion. Genus and species names should be italicized, thistles not. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change name proposal

This article should be better called "Sharp-pointed plant defensive mechanisms" or something like that. It covers more than thorns, spines and prickles. --RoRo (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current name. However, post at WP:PLANTS talk page and let other editors know about this to get further input. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ok I will try, I can be lucky and get an answer and all. --RoRo (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sharp-pointed plant defensive mechanisms" is a bit unwieldy, and doesn't allow for these structures serving purposes other than defence. The prickles on rambling roses are primarily a means of holding on to their supporting tree. The fine prickles on Rosa rugosa are thought to help trap wind-blown sand around the plant on the dunes where it grows. I'm not sure a better title can be found which covers all forms and functions of these structures. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What about "Spinose structures of plants". BTW you have a reference at hand for those examples? I want to add them to the text. --RoRo (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology is a real problem in this area. Terms like "thorn", "spine", "prickle", etc. don't seem to have consistent uses in different sources – see User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Spines vs. thorns where there's some material I had intended to work into this article, but hadn't got round to. The problem I see with "Spinose structures of plants" is that it seems to connect too strongly with "spine" – Stearn's Botanical Latin gives spinosus, spinose, as an adjective meaning "spiny". Some sources use "spine", "spiny", etc. very generally, but others (e.g. Beentje 2010) don't.

The material recently added is not properly supported by botanical sources. It needs inline references and then additional material explaining that some sources use the terms in the way now given, but others do not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article title you may be looking for is armature (plant), but I'm not having immediate success is finding a definition of the scope of this term. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references as bibliography at the end of the text, as all text is supported by that. But if you prefer I will add it as inline reference. A glochidium is a particular kind of spine, but I will define them too. --RoRo (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, although the "lead" is currently not a lead, and needs moving to the body of the article, with a genuine summary as the lead.

However, there must be discussion of different uses. For example, the article says that spines are derived from leaves, but none of the four sources I listed at User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Spines vs. thorns restrict the term to leaf-derived structures. Also, the use of spinosus as an epithet is relevant; many plants with such names have what the article calls "thorns", e.g. Prunus spinosa. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be right to put a table like that, adding the rest of the sources. It looks like the main confussion arises because there is a "broad" and a "narrow" definition of spine. In spanish is the same, coloquially we use "espina" and "espinoso" in a very broad sense, but botanists distinguish between espina (caulinar = thorn, foliar = spine) and aguijón (= prickle). It looks like botanists agree much more about the spanish terms than about the english ones. --RoRo (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turner et al. 2005, Sonoran Desert Plants mentions the 2 definitions of spine, the leafy one and the "everything that resembles a spine" one. It uses thorn, spine and prickle as here, adding to the references. --RoRo (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources. Also, as I said above, I think that the fact that botanical Latin does not distinguish thorn and spine as nouns (spina is used for both) is an issue worth noting. Latin diagnoses required until recently could only add adjectives of origin to make any distinctions felt necessary, e.g. spina caulina for "thorn". Prickle on the other hand has a separate word, aculeus, but this seems to refer more to the curved shape than the origin. I think the "old" botanists would have scorned distinctions which relied on English words like "thorn"! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not only Thorns and develop the rest of it in the Article? Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a single word were to be used, "Spine" would be better, as this can include "thorn" in botanical use, but the reverse isn't true. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other sharp plant organs

It seems to be that it would be worth mentioning glochids in the text, as well as a see also, and there are also pricklets and acicles. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roots & prickles

Hi, I don't know how common it is, but roots do have prickles, e.g. Pandanus aerial/prop roots can have small prickles. It states in the article roots can only have spines.

Pcrooker (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says the structures are prickles? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadaf, A and Zanan, R. "Indian Pandanaceae - an overview" Springer, India, 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-0753-5, page 29 (re the genus). "Trees or shrubs, usually erect or prostrate; stem simple to branched, smooth or armed with stout prickles, supported by prominent prop roots, prop roots smooth to armed with sharp prickles." Also seeing this first hand in Tonga - there are vertical rows of sharp things on the prop roots, I don't know what else they could be but prickles. You can find it in photos online, here's one: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/dolly-closeup-shot-of-the-stilt-roots-of-a-pandanus-tree-woz9iny

When present, they are small and sharp! I saw one reference that vaguely suggested they arise from stomata, that perhaps fits them being in rows, but don't know about that... Anyway, I think this is just one of those situations where no one mentions it because it is not considered diagnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcrooker (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The article's first and second paragraph (from "In plant morphology..." up to "...in order to reproduce.") are copied verbatim from para 2.2.2 "Thorns" of the following academic text:

Z. R. Rather SUCCESSIVE BOTANY B.Sc Part II based on Kashmir University Syllabus Edition 2003 Pentium Publications

This publication was discovered by means of the following search: https://books.google.it/books?id=aNMHBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT42&dq=urent%20vestiture&hl=it&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q=urent%20vestiture&f=true Vcena (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vcena: good catch! I've reported it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't look right. While the opening paragraphs were written in September 2013 (while the book is dated 2013 without a month) the "in order to reproduce" bit was added in May 2012, and modified to the precise wording used in the book in a separate edit, by a different editor. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: yes, I'm sure now the book has copied from us, rather than vice versa. Having done a bit of work on the article more recently than 2013, I hadn't even considered the possibility that the lead hadn't changed since then. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In human culture

While I could possibly see a section like the "in human culture" one that's based on secondary sources that discuss the importance of thorns, spines and prickles as key symbolism is cultural works, this section is unsourced or based on primary sources. And they're mostly about brambles, while the article is about the specific anatomical structures.

I'm removing it as OR/cruft. Guettarda (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meganesia - the "Hunter" book is a story of a big game hunter - how is that a reliable source for an article about plant anatomy? The Felson book looks like it's just passing mention, can you explain your rationale? Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super blow-up

Add a microscope blow up of the very tip of a thorn. Jidanni (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]