Talk:Monoecious

"(less commonly, "hermaphrodite" or "androgynous" might be used, by analogy to their meanings in zoology)"

If you can show me some botanical literature that utilizes these terms, I'd be happy to support you in keeping them in. Since the vast majority of flowering (and other) plants are (under the loosest possible definition) hermaphroditic or androgynous, the terms really have no meaning in botany (other than to say a typical flower is hermaphroditic); they are not analgous to to the terms as used in zoology and clicking on the links to the respective pages seems to confirm that. So either the respective androgynous and hermaphrodite (you mix a noun and an adjective) pages are wrong, or you are just perpetuating poor botanical terminology. Also I would question their appearance under monoecious; they should be under flower if indeed they are sometimes used botanical terms - Marshman 22:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See my note at Talk:Bisexual. If you simply search the fabulous web you'll find these terms used (and from my perusal it seems to be as a synonym for bisexual). Therefore we should at least acknowledge them. However, if they are not strict botanical terms, then we should acknowledge that as well. This seems straightforward to me; it's not perpetuating poor terminology to include it in the article and mark it as deprecated. This seems a superior method for dealing with poor terminology than leaving it out of the article entirely.

As far as whether the terms really are crap or not, I really couldn't say; you or someone else make the call; to my mind, "bisexual", "hermaphroditic", and "androgynous" all suffer from exactly the same ambiguity and essentially share synonymous meanings (although they also have other distinct meanings) in non-technical English, so I can only assume your preference for "bisexual" is based on some historical prejudice in technical literature. I have seen at least hermaphrodite used (again meaning bisexual) in popular horticultural books.

And yes, I noticed your edit changing hermaphrodite to hermaphroditic; you don't have to point it out to me twice. If you want to get really pedantic, at least one of the most permissive dictionaries, MerWeb, allows hermaphrodite as an adjective, and this use seems natural enough to me. --Chinasaur 19:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me pedantic; Never ;^) I appreciate your staying cool in the face of my spouting - Marshman 18:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is one reason I have problems with working on Wikipedia. No matter what improvements one tries to make, there is always someone out there that seems not to get it. The deleted paragraph discusses an aspect of dioecy. So why would it be worthwhile keeping here (monoecious) when it is already given in the article to which it pertains (see Dioecious). Sub-dioecy is not intermediate between monoecy and dioecy. It is part way between having perfect flowers and being dioecious. In that respect, it simply perpetuates the confusion of these terms that readers continue to get using Wikipedia as a source of information. Personally, I think both articles should be somehow combined, since they are not much more than dictionary definitions right now. - Marshman 03:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as this is a problem with Wikipedia, a more positive perspective is that it provides you with rapid feedback as to whether your edit is intelligible to someone other than yourself. In this case though I think it was harder for me to understand the point you were making because I had already read the previous version and had my preconceptions, something that you probably don't have to worry about for people just coming to the pages as they stand now. I agree we should consider combining the pages. --Chinasaur 19:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right. But I think there exists some real confusion on these terms, so we certainly do need to be clear about what we are saying. My problem was that you were changing/reverting without any explanation here (discussion page); that was my main complaint, really. I did find use of the term "hermaphrodite" in botanical literature (I concede to your inclusion of it). The problem I'm attempting to satisfy myself on is whether the term applies to perfect flowers (obviously hermaphroditic) or monoecious plants (hermaphroditic individuals, but unisexual flowers) or both. As for combining; it would make sense. But what term would you suggest combining under? Perhaps "Plant sexuality"? - Marshman 05:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started an article at Plant sexuality. I've put all new stuff in to get a framework going, so anyone can move over the material from this article as time permits, although perhaps the first task is to make sure the angispermists do not dominate the text - Marshman 18:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plant sexuality?

The redirect is absurd. This term is common in zoology when dealing with lower invertebrates. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins can you provide some cites? If so we should make this a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

Monoicous/dioicous

I've just given the article on these terms an extensive going-over. Might it now be a more suitable target for the redirect? Liam Proven (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a different term, with a different meaning and applicability , not just a different spelling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC).