	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

This article could never become more than an extended definition. If nobody who has this article on their watchlist has anything to complaint, I shall make this it become a disambiguation page to Inflorescence, Spinal cord and Feather and merge the little information it contains to that pages and to Poaceae. Aelwyn 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Merge tag

I advise against a merge with Poaceae. The grasses are only one family where the rachis is prominent and varied. My other small concern is with the idea that rachis can only be an extended definition. I dont doubt that this might be the case but just as User:Aelwyn greatly extended and improved the inflorescence article, another editor may emerge with equally citable material solely devoted to the rachis. Mmcknight4 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as User:Aelwyn greatly extended and improved the inflorescence article, another editor may emerge with equally citable material solely devoted to the rachis. No, it would not be possible, as rachis describes a part of one peculiar inflorescence. It simply holds the spikelets. We don't need an article for every word! Do we also need shell (acorn)? And ray (umbellet)? Not to mention wing (scorpionflies). Just kidding ;-). I mean, this article is not needed at all, IMHO. regards. Aelwyn 13:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Please, don't take it personally. I know everybody is somehow emotionally linked to their articles. A merger would be best.[reply]

By all means, rachis may not be needed and I dont, out of hand, reject a merge/deletion. And I don't even think Ive edited the rachis article and as such, have no attachment to it. I guess the point I was making is that while the rachis seems non-notable with respect to the inflorescence article, there may be enough material on it to do something with. Maybe not. ANyway, if you are inclined to merge, why with Poaceae? Much of the Arecaceae material I have mentions the rachis and its forms. And I guess another problem I had is the idea that rachis would redirect to inflorescence. The inflorescence article doesn't seem to treat the prominence and variability of the rachis in grasses or palms and I think that discrepancy would need mending following a merge and redirect. Mmcknight4 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I don't want to merge it to Poaceae, but to merge the single parts to Poaceae, Feather and any other article where it's relevant. This should absolutely NOT be a redirect to inflorecence, but rather become a disambiguation. Aelwyn 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to wiktionary and requested a rachis definition so I can link to it whenever it gets made which is fine enough by me. Mmcknight4 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you make it a disambiguation page, don't forget compound leaves.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merger proposed. This is one of the most absurd mergers i ve seen proposed. Plumpurple (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Rachis' and the distillation of liqueur from grape vines.

This is a proposal to cross-reference and link the Wikipedia page for the scientific term Rachis to the article for 'Raki, a distilled liqueur originally developed from the byproducts of grape wine production. The "spines" of the fruit bearing portion of the grape vine (from the ancient Greek word 'Rachis') are the primary ingredient along with partly crushed grape or the addition of dried grapes (typically unsuitable for wine) and herbs (many times anise stars predominately).

The alcoholic drink that is made from the distillation of rachis and other wine making byproducts is believed to be one of the oldest distilled drinks produced. The historical record is clear that the 'spine of the grape' was processed and used.

The Wikipedia article for Raki is filled with material errors and fails to cite the facts of what the rachis is, the significance it has to the science and history of wine making and the indisputable etymology of the word rachis and it's alternate spelling rakis from a Greek word for spine.

There is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent and co-opt a culturally significant contribution here.

The origin of the word Rachis (masculine form) and Raki (plural), are proven as fact by reference to the written historical record in the context of it's original sources. Any scholarly dictionary that can be cited confirms this information.

All linguistic rules are consistent grammatically and these examples are the first occurrences in common use. Other claims are illegitimate as a result.

If fraudulent information that has been entered into the pages of Wikipedia is not corrected, that would show prejudice. To have any credibility these article need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.112.51 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first step would be to put forward a list of published references. Wikipedia doesn't report new research, see WP:OR, but if this linguistic research is already reported elsewhere, it can be written about it here. Perhaps the raki page needs to be expanded with a section about the alternative view of the linguistic history. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]