Talk:Drosera rotundifolia

Untitled

Cut:

In the UK, it is a protected wild flower and therefore it is a criminal offence to remove all or part of one of these plants from the wild.

It isn't listed as so on the uk govenment web site. see http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1816 Zeimusu | Talk page 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Darwin and Drosera

Is it interesting and maybe useful for the article? It is also fascinating to note that Darwin himself conducted several experiments evaluating the effects of small doses on an insect-eating plant (Drosera rotundifolia, commonly called sundew) that is commonly used in homeopathic medicine. He found that solutions of certain salts of ammonia stimulated the glands of the plant's tentacles and caused the plant to turn inward. He made this solution more and more dilute, but the plant still was able to detect the presence of the salt. On July 7, 1874, he wrote to a well-known physiologist, Professor F. C. Donders of Utrecht, Netherlands, that he observed that 1/4 000 000 of a grain had a demonstrable effect upon the Drosera, and Darwin was shocked and dismayed to write, ‘the 1/20 000 000th of a grain of the crystallised salt does the same. Now, I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement’ (11).

Astonished by his observation, Darwin likened it to a dog that perceives the odor of an animal a quarter of a mile distant. He said: ‘Yet these particles must be infinitely smaller than the one twenty millionth of a grain of phosphate of ammonia’ (21). Darwin said about this spectacular phenomenon:

The reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves (p. 170) (21). In Darwin's book on his experiments with Drosera, he expressed complete amazement at the hypersensitivity of a plant to extremely small doses of certain chemicals: ‘Moreover, this extreme sensitiveness, exceeding that of the most delicate part of the human body, as well as the power of transmitting various impulses from one part of the leaf to another, have been acquired without the intervention of any nervous system’ (p. 272) (21). http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/33

This is from reliable sources and I m just asking if it could be useful. Please do not delete other editors contributions. --BeatriceX (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

--BeatriceX (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors need to be made aware of the first paragraph of WP:TALK which clearly states The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Shot info (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You dont want to read. Again. My personal views ? The above is taken from Darwin's book about his experiments on Drosera.Read please. It is not hard. --BeatriceX (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice - allow me to (re)articulate what other editors have asked you to do in the many other locations you are trying to insert this into - Rather than arguing please show exactly what you propose to alter the article to. Thanks Shot info (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I m asking whether or not Darwin experiments on drosera - described in his own words - have a place in this article since he was spent so much time on it. If not why? --BeatriceX (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm asking you, what you propose to alter the article to? I don't care if its in or out - I want to see exactly what you propose to add. Shot info (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To include Darwins experiment if editors think it would add something. I will be more specific in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it's WP:TRIVIA but I'm reserving judgement to see how long your proposed edit is to see if it doesn't exceed WP:WEIGHT. Ta Shot info (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It possibly merits a mention, but it needs a better source than the article cited, which raises a few red flags. In particular its description of the solutions used by Darwin as "homeopathic doses" is entirely unsupported by any evidence. Brunton (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is'nt better to discuss these things than to delete other editor's contributions? Use of the Darwin's text would be OK -I think he is reliable enough.--BeatriceX (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if we can see your proposed edits - you know - the whole point of these Talk page thingyos? Shot info (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in seeing the proposed edits? There is no point in encouraging a new editor to spend time creating content that should be deleted immediately. BeatriceX's interpretation of Darwin's words and her weighing of their importance is not part of this encyclopedia--it's original research of the worst kind, an editor's opinions about something.

"Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

It's easy to include a passage from Darwin that is relevant to a topic: find out what others have said about it, and include their interpretations and evaluative claims about the material, then quote Darwin from the original--the proper way to use this primary source. --Kleopatra (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's books are a good source i believe. This is a plant he experimented with - we discuss whether or not this info can be interesting for inclusion . Thanks for your opinion. --BeatriceX (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The material's inclusion is based on whether researchers or others find it interesting, not on whether you find it interesting and notable and relevant to something. I already said that. You already didn't read it. Again, it's time to discuss this at AN/I. Meanwhile, WP:Primary sources. --Kleopatra (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Kleopatra : this is an fragment from wikipedia on

"Darwin " Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection "by which to work",[84] as his "prime hobby".[85] His research included animal husbandry and extensive experiments with plants, finding evidence that species were not fixed and investigating many detailed ideas to refine and substantiate his theory.[3] For fifteen years this work was in the background to his main occupation of writing on geology and publishing expert reports on the Beagle collections.[86] When FitzRoy's Narrative was published in May 1839, Darwin's Journal and Remarks was such a success as the third volume that later that year it was published on its own.[87]

Wikipedia'S editors here are using his books as references for the article. Is this original research? --BeatriceX (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the main Drosera article, which mentions Darwin's finding that the contact of the leg of a gnat with a single tentacle was enough to provoke a reaction. That is relevant finding because it is directly concerned with the plant's method of feeding. However, there is nothing to suggest that Darwin's findings about the effects of ammonium salts are sufficiently significant to warrant this particular finding from a 450 page work being singled out for inclusion here. As Shot info suggests above, including this would appear to raise a WP:WEIGHT problem. Brunton (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Does not have a historic significance considering the time he spent on this? --BeatriceX (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

He spent time on many things. Can you provide any reason that we should consider this particular observation more worthy of note than any of the other observations in Insectivorous Plants? Darwin's published output (and correspondence) is vouminous - it cannot all be covered in an encyclopedia. Brunton (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this is the plant he used for this experiment. And second he thinks it so strange. His metaphors are also very strong. Historical significance?. --BeatriceX (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, folks. Here's my $0.02. While I dislike the mention of homeopathy, including references to what Darwin tried on Drosera rotundifolia to illicit movement may be a good idea. He was trying to figure out if it was a chemical of physical stimulant that caused tentacle movement. This much is good to include. Without knowing more or re-reading that passage of Insectivorous Plants right now, I can't say whether the dilution information is necessary. There is, however, a large difference between dilution of a concentrated substance to a point that would still illicit movement (biology often operates with picomolar concentrations) and homeopathy, which dilutes substances out of the concoction, relying on the silly and thoroughly debunked notion of water memory. We shouldn't include pseudoscience, but we should note the different things tried on this plant. I'll be travelling today, but I can work on including this later in the week. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC);

However, your like or dislike of the mention does not matter. What matters is what other researchers consider the significance of Darwin's stepping into this area. The information in the passage is not significant if you or BeatriceX find it interesting. It is significant if other researchers found it significant and published the significance of Darwin's forays into this area. So, please don't just reread the book and weigh the importance of the topic, but find reliable secondary or tertiary sources that assert the importance of the topic one way or the other. If there are none, then its inclusion in this, or any other article, is not necessary. If there are reliable sources asserting the importance of the topic, its inclusion in this, and possibly other articles, can be weighed based on the research about it. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Kleopatra, we are not required to provide secondary or tertiary sources to support the inclusion of a simple statement of fact such as "Darwin used this species in his experiments". A primary source (Darwin) would suffice in this case, since we are not interpreting or analysing the material. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If Darwin's work is to be included here, we need to figure out which parts of it are important as far as this particular species of sundew is concerned. Its alleged importance wrt homoeopathy is not important here. Why is this particular comment important wrt this particular species of sundew, rather than the rest of Insectivorous Plants? Brunton (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Darwin's work should be included here. This was one of the organisms he used most in his experiments and his insights on carnivorous plants come from his work on this species. The only problem I see here is miscommunication. Yes, Darwin showed tentacle movement from small doses of ammonia, but that's not homeopathy and can never be claimed to be. It is an interesting note, however, that Darwin was the first person to observe the sensitivity of the response to small quantities of different substances. With regard to Kleopatra's comment, there are dozens of reliable sources that note the importance of Darwin's experiments on Drosera rotundifolia in early understanding of carnivorous plants, so that's no problem. We could definitely expand Insectivorous Plants (book), too. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"It is an interesting note, however, that Darwin was the first person to observe the sensitivity of the response to small quantities of different substances." This would require additional sources, who says it is an interesting note, and why, from the usual reliable, proper references, as for all wikipedia articles.

I don't have any problems with simple statements of facts from secondary or tertiary fources, Mgiganteus1, perhaps you can quote where I've said I do, and I can correct this? . --Kleopatra (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the idea of mentioning Darwin's work on Drosera as a whole, but I would question whether this particular observation should be singled out for attention. Drosera rotundifolia is the subject of the first eleven chapters of Darwin's book, and there seems to be no reason for selecting this particular chapter for mention, unless it is the case that Darwin was the first to mention the sensitivity to ammonium salts, in which case we need a source for this - the article suggested as a source at the start of this thread doesn't say this, and only seems to consider it significant in the context of an attempt to link Darwin with homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, people. Kleopatra: I wasn't suggesting we put my comment in there that it is interesting to note. It was my defense of including more information on what Darwin did with this plant in his experiments. I also said providing additional sources on this is absolutely no problem. In particular, the following books have exceptional detail about this: Juniper, B.E., Robins, R.J., and Joel, D.M. 1989. The Carnivorous Plants. Academic Press, London; and F.E. Lloyd. 1942. The Carnivorous Plants. Waltham, Mass., Chronica Botanica Company. Overall, though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with describing what Darwin did in his experiments on this plant by sourcing Darwin's book alone; no secondary sources are necessary for that. And Brunton: I wasn't defending inclusion of only this statement. That would be absurd, but Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. If only this got included in a new section on Darwin's work with this species, that's perfectly acceptable, as long as it was neutral with respect to (or didn't mention) homeopathy. If I were to work on expanding this article with Darwin's work, I would include all significant aspects of his experiments. But of course I'm spending more time calming you down than actually working on the article... Rkitko ^(talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your earlier post. You evidently know more than me about this; all I really know about Drosera is from Darwin's book (and most of it a skim - Ironically the only chapter I've read in detail is chapter seven, in a vain attempt to find anything to back up the claims by homoeopaths that these experiments had anything to do with homoeopathy). Is Darwin's work on these plants still considered important, or is it more of historical interest? I don't have access to the books you cite, but I notice that the Wikipedia "Carnivorous plants" article states that Darwin's book was "the first well-known treatise" on the subject, so merits inclusion here given the extensive research on rotundifolia in it (cf the inclusion his work on barnacles on the "barnacle" page, which includes information about its context within Darwin's life). Don't worry about calming me down - I switched to decaf some months ago. :) Brunton (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)