Taxonomy or classification of plants. Originally the plant kingdom included bacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, fungi, and slime moulds, but these are not now thought of as plants. The groups that are always classified as plants are the bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), pteridophytes (ferns, horsetails, and club mosses), gymnosperms (conifers, yews, cycads, and ginkgos), and angiosperms (flowering plants). The angiosperms are split into monocotyledons (for example, orchids, grasses, lilies) and dicotyledons (for example, oak, buttercup, geranium, and daisy).
The unicellular algae, such as Chlamydomonas, are often now put with the protists (single-celled organisms) instead of the plants. Some classification schemes even classify the multicellular algae (seaweeds and freshwater weeds) in a new kingdom, the Protoctista, along with the protists.
Well I think Egg said that bacteria,fungi,algae are plants because he followed the two kingdom system in which plants are divide into phanerogams[flowering plants ex:cycas,hibiscus,etc] and cryptogams[Non-Flowering plants ex:Acetobacter aceti,mucor,etc].
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
All cryptogams fall into the kingdom Plantae-that of plants, but you're right, the cryptogam group is a dodgy one. i.e- funghi are heterotrophs, no photosynthesis but converting organic matter into carbon. Algae and some bacteria do photosynthesise, although these bacteria do not possess chloroplasts. Bacteria are also very different in that they are prokaryotes (DNA is not enclosed in a nucleus) bacteria and archea are the only prokaryotes, all other lifeforms are classed as eukaryotes( whose cells have nuclei) Mosses and liverworts / ferns are tracheophytes, meaning they possess a vascular system. They all have one thing in common, reproduction by spores. The classification system is'nt perfect and i think this is a very debatable group of plantae that may well change in the future.
Well, nuts and grains are fruits. It's just that when a person with little biological knowledge says fruit, he/she thinks about melon, apple, orange etc. And not the dry fuits also.
And by the way, yes, you can say a seedless fruit is a fruit just as you can say a mature human RBC is a cell...
Has this something to do with parthogenesis or something which sounds like that???
Known to human mind is a handful,
Unknown is a galaxy!!!
After you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth
I think you mean
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".
~ George washington Carver
'Parthenocarpic, translates as 'virgin seed' and refers to the natural or artificial production of fruit without the fertilisation of ovules, the resulting fruit being seedless, this process can act as a defense in some plants the fruits being sweeter attract pests away from the seeded fruits. 'Parthogenesis' or 'Parthenogenesis' meaning 'virgin birth' is the development of an embryo/seed without the fertilisation of a male. I think you're both right, parthenocarpic being exclusive to plants and parthenogenesis being a broader term covering asexual reproduction in creatures such as some insects, lizards, fish and even chickens.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests