Talk:Monoicy

dicdef

You are creating a lot of confusion without much discussion with those that wrote much of the material you are moving all over the place. At Wikipedia, we try to avoid articles that are essentially dictionary definitions (that is what Wiktionary is all about), which seems to me to be what you are doing - Marshman 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree with the general idea, I disagree that here is a mere dictionary definition. I am not a newcomer to wikipedia and I knew what I was doing. mikka (t) 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not to say that it should not be moved to dictionary in any case: at worst, it should redirect to some kind of "plant sexuality" article. mikka (t) 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy suspicion

I collected various definitiond from several places in wikipedia. In particular, is it true that "Monoecious" and "Monoicous" are not the same? I find this rather suspicious: they derive from the same Greek and sound the same. I admit I am ignorant here, but to have so close-sounding terms in one and the same area of science is rather strange to me. mikka (t) 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, http://www2.gardenweb.com/glossary/monoecious.html and http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/monecious say the terms are interchangeable. mikka (t) 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

quotation

Contradicts the strict distinction in wikipedia:

Of the other or monoicous sub-group of polygamous plants, or those which bear hermaphrodite, male and female flowers on the same individual, the common Maple (Acer campestre) offers a good instance; but Lecoq states that some trees are truly dioecious, and this shows how easily one state passes into another.

mikka (t) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Webster

Both 1913 and Webster online:

Monoicous \Mo*noi"cous\, a. (Bot.)

Monoecious.

Bryologists

I've found a quotation which says that "icous" is a term of preference for bryologists, but it is still possible that other botanists freely mix/match "icous"/"ecious", as in one of the quotaitons above mikka (t) 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian language

Both terms are translated as "однодомный" the same calque from Greek "one house". mikka (t) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer of user:Marsman

(moved from Talk:Plant sexuality) There was something at the bottom of that article under Bryophytes that suggested they are not the same. But the word is monoecious. I know not what monoicous means, but it seems to be a term used by lower plant biologists (mosses, algae, etc.) where sexuality is different from that displayed by the higher plants. A search of Google finds only a couple of articles that are not from Wikipedia that use the term "monoicous". Still, your collecting definitions together from articles is contrary to a direction we should go in. You are gathering them from articles where they were (in some cases) moved not too long ago to avoid a problem that the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy is designed to clear up. If you are creating a page of related definitions, it will just get swept away as inappropriate for an encyclopedia. - Marshman 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you know, wikipedia is not an authoritative source. For example the same "bryophytes" article says that "Dioecious" is "two households" in Greek. Obviously some guy copied this from someone else without much thinking and checking facts. And this is "contrary to the direction we should go in". I accept only one direction: to make information clear, verifiable, readily available and cross-referenced. "Not a wiktionary" preacher does not stand here: as long as monoecious plants exist in real life, they deserve a separate article.

Some time ago someone tried to "prove" that clothespin (when it was a one-sentence stub) should be moved to wiktionary. Our ignorance is not an argument in such cases. If we don't know that there is nothing to say but dicdef, it does not mean that no one else cay say more. mikka (t) 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

-oicous / -oecius

The terms monoicous and dioicous refer to the sexuality of halpoid organisms, specifically whether a gametophyte produces one or both kinds of gametangia and gametes. The terms dioecious and monoecious refer to sporophytes that produce gametophytes on separate or the same diploid plant, respectively. --EncycloPetey 01:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• References, please, from reputable biologists, and not from various online dictionaries which copy definitions fom each other without bothering about sources.

My original source was the material I learned in my Bryology course at Duke University from Dr. Brent Mishler (now at UC Berkeley) and Dr. Lewis Anderson (co-author of the two volume comprehensive treatment of the Mosses of Eastern North America). Dr. Anderson is one of the most respected bryologists of the twentieth century, and has published numerous papers on his original research. I did not use an on-line dictionary, and wouldn't trust one to get this kind of distinction in terminology correct without expert help. --EncycloPetey 08:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that experts in respective fields tend to differentiate the terminology. But the terms may be used interchangeably by some, and, what is more important, this hapens in older sources. There is no change reason not to interchange terms, since they are used for different types of organisms, and hence there is no potential for confusion. For example, the topic here is plant "sexuality", the same term as for animals ("sexuality"), and no one panics that the same term is applied to radically different ways of reproduction.

To my classsical Greek education this -oicous / -oecius is just as ridiculos distinction, as if someone started to insist that "foetus" and "fetus" are different words: the first one is, say, human post-embryo, and the latter one is for all other animals. mikka (t) 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The analogy you make is not applicable to this situation. There are indeed biological concepts where one term is applied to humans and another to all other animals, and I too cringe at this pretentious silliness. In this case, however, the distinction in terminology reflects a basic difference in genetics. A monecious or dioecious organism has two complete sets of chromosomes in all of its cells, with the potential to undergo meiosis in sex cells and thereby produce eggs or sperm with virtually unlimited genetic variability. A monoicous or dioicous organism has a single set of chromosomes in all of its cells, with no potential for meiosis to occur. Instead, sex cells are formed through mitosis and will all be genetically indentical to each other and to the cells of the parent plant. The difference in terminology thus reflects a fundamental difference in biology.

The simplest direct reference I can quickly obtain is from Howard Crum's Structural Diversity of Bryophytes (p.66): "The terms dioicous (unisexual) and monoicous (bisexual) are generally used in reference to the haploid gametophytes of mosses, and other bryophytes, whereas dioecious and monoecious refer to the diploid sporophytes of higher plants." Crum acknowledges explicitly that (as you have also noted) the words are "merely different transliterations from the same Greek roots". While I do not have a copy at hand, I suspect that the Glossarium for bryological terms published by the Missouri Botanical Garden will also contain these terms.

And, yes, there is potential for confusion between the two sets of terms. While you will seldom hear a botanist who specializes in flowering plants use the term dioicous, it is applicable to flowering plants, since all flowering plants have two distinct kinds of gametophytes. In other words, while a flowering plant may be either monoecious or dioecious (in reference to the production of pollen and seeds), it will always be dioicous (in reference to the production of eggs and sperm). It is because this condition exists uniformly in all flowering plants that the term is seldom used by those botanists, and not because it does not apply.

No one panics over the term sexuality bing used for both plants and animals because it refers to the same fundamental biological process. While the details may look radically different on the surface, the underlying process is the same in both groups. Specifically, at some point in the life cycle a diploid cell undergoes meiosis to segregate the genetic information into four haploid cells. One of these haploid cells will undergo syngamy (fusion) with another haploid cell to form a diploid zygote with a new combination of genes. The prescence of this two step process that produces new genetic variety is the biological definition of "sex" (see Lynn Margulis' excellent book What is Sex?).

Note that I do not accept any argument that appeals to "older use" in scientific literature. Scientific terms change their meanings as a direct result of increased knowledge of the subject to which they apply. To regress to an older meaning is to deny the advances in scientific knowledge. In short, if you go to literature old enough, sponges are plants, geese are fish, and the seeds of ferns are not seen because they are invisible. I prefer instead to use the standard modern definitions of scientific terms and avoid archaic uses. --EncycloPetey 07:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Synoecious not a synonym of autoecious

In all of the botanical texts and dictionaries I've checked, the word autoecious is not a synonym of monoecious. Instead, it refers to a parasite (such as a Uredinalean fungus) that completes its life cycle on a single host. I have found at least one reference to autoicous in reference to bryophyte sexuality where both gametangia occur on a single branch (as opposed to separate branches of the same plant), but I still think calling syn- forms synonymous with aut- forms too sweeping unless someone can find the term applied to vascular plants. --EncycloPetey 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Lproven

These edits were predicated on a number of significant errors that were so thoroughly integrated into the rewrite that it was easier to revert than to edit:

1. Monoicous / Dioicous has nothing to do with sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism in plants refers to visible difference in morphology not related to the sex organs. Only dioicous gamteophytes can be sexually dimorphic, but in many gametophytes, they are not. Typically, only the sex organs, or the branches that bear them are dimorphic, not the entire plant. There are cases in which the male and female gametophyte will be completely dimorphic and distinguishable, even without the sex organs present, but this is not a requirement for dioicy.
2. The sporophyte is not 'asexual'. Sexaul reproduction involves both meiosis and syngamy, and these processes occur at the boundary between gametophyte and sporophye generation, not in one or the other.

Further, much of the rewrite duplicates information that should properly be on the Alternation of generations article, not here. This page is about the monoicous condition, and the dioicous condition as a consequence. The only reason monecious and dioecious are included here at all is to reduce the confusion of users who think monoicous is just a typo for monecious, instead of realizing they are different terms applied in different situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links of this article

I was told that the links es:Monoica and fr:Monoécie added by my bot were incorrect. However, there are still links from those articles to this article (either direct links or via some other language), so the next autonomous bot is just going to re-add the links... Someone who knows the subject matter should go through all involved languages and correct all links. I can also do it myself, but are there any other incorrect links than es and fr? --Silvonen (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only because stupid bots keep adding those links to those articles. I have personally removed those links to here repeatedly, but the bots keep putting them back. Please fix the bots. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bots don't understand the content of the article, so they just propagate any manually added incorrect links (see the FAQ). It is not enough to correct the links in the English Wikipedia; we need to go through all the languages. --Silvonen (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the bots should be stopped. No matter how many times I fix the links here, on es anf fr, the bots keep putting in the wrong links. I understand the bots are unable to distinguish content but they are designed and run by users who should take responsibility for fixing the problems with their bots instead of claiming they have no control over the mistakes their bots are making. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I already told you how we can fix the problem by going through all the languages (not just en, es and fr). In fact, I would have fixed it already, but first I want to see if we get any comments from other users, in case there are other errors that should be corrected. --Silvonen (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, the interwiki from es.wp it's OK, however es:Monoica is only about "monoic plants" today, so en:Monoicous shouldn't have the interwiki to es. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links should be reciprocal. If the scope is different, we shouldn't link the articles at all: interwiki links “are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less.” (Help:Interlanguage links) However, if the scope is going to be similar but you just haven't written all the text yet, then a two-way link is OK. --Silvonen (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please top trying to shift the blame. You haven't thought this through. Most experts will only read two or three of these languages. Your proposed solution is impractical, implausible, and possibly impossible. I have fixed the Spanish and French because I'm good enough at reasing those languages. I can't read the Czech, Russian, and Estonian articles, so I can't fix the links there. I have no idea what those articles cover. Your "solution" requires a specialist in bryophyte reproductive ecology who can read Catalan, Czech, German, Estonian, Norwegian, Spanish, Russian, and other languages as well to go through and verify content before the bots come back and undo all his work. That isn't going to happen. The solution is for the people who run the bots to take responsibility for what their bots do instaed of claiming it's someone else's problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not “my solution,” it is simply how interwiki linking works in the current version of Wikipedia. Users add only a fraction of the links manually, and bots do all the remaining work behind the scenes. We don't need one expert who knows all the languages, as long as each language has one user capable of linking the article to the corresponding article in English (or in some other language). If there are conflicts, we can use these talk pages to figure out how the pages should be linked. The system is not without its flaws, but this is how it works. – But we are digressing. I simply want to know if other users agree on what needs to be done to the links of this article [so that I can fix them]. --Silvonen (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. You have noted that the bots "propagate any manually added incorrect links" but they do not propogate manual removal of links. So, if the links are corrected, they simply revert the correction. To get the feedback you are requesting for just one article, you will be waiting a very long time. The method you describe for fixing the problem requires pairwise comparison of all the article pairs. For a set number of languages (n), that's [2^(n-1)] comments that you need comparing the articles. For an article with 11 possible versions, that works out to 1024 comparisons and comments. Just fix the bots and stop postponing it by waiting for the impossible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a fruitful discussion. I think I'll just wait for a couple of days for comments and then delink es:Monoica and fr:Monoécie if no one objects. --Silvonen (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles es:Monoica and fr:Monoécie are now linked only to each other. We might need to create more than two groups or to move some articles from one group to another, but let the local experts tell us if that is necessary. --Silvonen (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Spanish project reverted my fix, so the next bot will probably re-add the links, unless we do something else now. --Silvonen (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all the linked articles actually refer to the same subject, but differ somewhat in what they say. The solution should be to correct its content, not unlink them. I have checked es, en, fr, ca, pt (and de, via machine translation).--Luis Fernández García (es:LP)) (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the articles are (or will be) reasonably synonymous with Monoicous (and there are no even more synonymous articles in any of the languages), we can link them to each other and let the bots do their work. If not, we need to divide the articles into groups whose members can be linked to each other. Either of these solutions should end the need to complain to bot owners. --Silvonen (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not say the same thing and do not cover the same subject. The French and Spanish articles are about sexuality of diploid organisms - those that have two sets of chromosomes and can undergo meiosis to segreagate homologous pairs. The English article on that subject would be titled Monoecious, which redirects to Plant sexuality. The Monoicous article was created to cover sexuality in those plants that are haploid, such as the bryophytes and the gametophytes of ferns. In gametophytes, segregation by meiosis cannot occur because the tissues contain only a single set of chromosomes. We should not alter the content of articles just because another Wikipedia has got stubs instead of full articles. The links should be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with EncycloPetey that Monoecious and Monoicous are not identical concepts. Try the links. You will find they lead to different, but related sets of ideas. If the bots cannot recognize the difference then they need to be trained to stop messing with them. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to train the bots is to divide the articles into synonymous sets manually (cf. my reverted attempt to fix the problem). Another alternative is {{nobots}}, but then you have to maintain all the links manually, which will most probably result in missing links. --Silvonen (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So, just add {{nobots}} on the page if you want to keep bots away until there is a consensus on the linking. Most interwiki bots observe this tag. --Silvonen (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is fixed now. I will remove the nobots, please revert (me and any naughty bots) and inform me if undesired interwikis come back. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56 7 September 2008 (GMT).

Ok I had to -re-re-unlink one of them so I'll igve it a few more days. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05 13 September 2008 (GMT).

Here we go again! Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Some analysis here: User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp87 Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

There's a reason this article was tagged as "nobots". The links are not properly done, and are frequently altered on one or more sites to link incorrectly. The problem is that most non-english speakers confuse "monoecious" and "monoicous". Attempts to disambiguate the two terms within the article have resulted in a hodge-podge in the past, which encouraged incorrect linking rather than discouraging it. Too many people assume that similarly spelled words cover the same topic, without actually reading what they are linking to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has some interesting stuff on the origins of the terms and on usage in different languages which may be relevant to incorrect linking on different language wikis. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Role In Survival

This section has some problems, and seems less than fully accurate to me. I read the refs and the text does not fairly represent them. Needs some work.Michaplot (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage of terms

User:Michaplot changed the leading paragraph to say "Monoicous is a botanical term used to describe bryophytes ...". I've changed "bryophytes" to "plants" and added a sentence "The terms are used largely but not exclusively in the context of bryophytes." Since extant non-bryophyte land plants [correction:] e.g. extant seed plants [end correction] are all dioicous, the terms aren't used for them since the contrast is irrelevant. However the terms are used for algae with alternation of generations; see e.g. [1] which has "By contrast, gametophytes of Coleochaete nitellarum are monoicous ...". (Coleochaete is a genus of charophyte algae.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I don't know much about the terminology related to algae. I have seen in biology dictionaries the claim that the terms can be applied to animals as well, so there may a wider usage than even botanical. In my experience, the terms dioicous and monoicous are used only in reference to bryophyte gametophytes, and the Crandall-Stotler chapter on moss morphology suggests that the terms refer to clusters of gametangia (which they call inflorescences--a term I removed from the article because it is confusing and a horrible term.)

It would seem that the terms certainly could, in principle, be applied to other land plant gametophytes, though I think we tend to use the terms unisexual and bisexual for gametophytes in other land plant groups instead. But wouldn't it be technically correct to call a leptosporangiate fern gametophyte monoicous? The reason I suspect we do not use these terms for non-bryophyte groups is because there is very little variation in their gametangial position and development--while bryophytes have lots of variation and need some terms to describe the variety.

Yes, a leptosporangiate fern gametophyte is monoicous; what I originally wrote above was simply wrong. As you say, the terms are most useful when the group under discussion varies in this respect. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the more rancorous issue will be the terms monoecious and dioecious. These have much wider familiarity to non-botanists, but their definitions and scope may prove difficult to agree on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of actual usage, it's clear that many botanists, including bryologists, do continue to use "monoecious" and "dioecious" to describe gametangia. It's equally clear that other botanists, not only bryologists, do not. Wikipedia should describe the distinction, while accepting that it's not universally made. I think this is the case both in this article and in Alternation_of_generations#Variations. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I take issue with the claim that "extant non-bryophyte land plants are all dioicous". This is not true, as some pteridophytes and green algae have monoicous gametophytes. It is only the sed plants that are entriely dioicous. While it is probably true that this terminology is not used (or at least I've not yet seen it used in that context), the biology differs from what the article now claims. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I wrote this! It's so wrong, as I really do know! I've corrected it above. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"-sexual" and "-oicy"

(Started a new section as this is a slightly different issue.) There are a bewildering (and to me highly confusing) variety of terms used to describe reproductive systems/life-cycles in plants; they are not used consistently within the major taxa; they are certainly not used consistently between the major taxa. It's true that, as said above, "unisexual" and "bisexual" are used as if "unisexual" = "dioicous" and "bisexual" = "monoicous" (thereby confusing non-specialists even more, since "one"-sexual = "two"-oicous and vice versa). However, it's possible to make a distinction in the case of "sequentially dioicous" species, i.e. species in which the gametophyte at any one time has only one kind of gametangium, but which can later switch to the other kind. This has been described as "diachronous bisexuality" by e.g. Bateman, Richard M. (1994). "Heterospory: the Most Iterative Key Innovation in the Evolutionary History of the Plant Kingdom". Biological Reviews. 69 (3): 345–417. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01276.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) p. 352. So "sequentially dioicous" = "diachronously bisexual", hence "dioicous" ≠ "unisexual". I think the idea behind some usages is that "unisexual" implies some kind of inherent (?genetic) disposition to only ever produce one kind of gamete, whereas "bisexual" does not. It's difficult to write about this in Wikipedia, even though it's the kind of information I suspect students of various branches of botany would find useful, because clear referenced sources are hard to find. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't make too much of this. Any biological phenomenon will prove on closer examination to be way more complex than had been previously determined. Plant life cycles are no exception. As the article you cite points out, the only incontrovertible observation is that a bisexual (monoicous) gametophyte exists. If a gametophyte appears unisex (dioicous), we cannot be sure if it would later give rise to the other sex of gamete, thus making it functionally bisexual, even though it is unisex when we observe it.

If you get too caught up in these sorts of exceptions and complications, you end up with a confusing mess. I would argue that W articles should present the basic information, and the nuances too--but the basic information should be primary. So, as far as the basic plant life cycle goes, (and as the article you cite repeats), the assumption is that heterospory includes anisospory, endospory, dioicy, etc. The fact that some plants do not follow this pattern is not a reason to refrain from saying that, for example, dioicy means unisex gametophytes. I think it would be better to present the basic pattern and then talk about exceptions or nuances later in the article, so that people can get the basic information and go deeper only if they want to. So many W articles are rendered useless by overemphasis of details that only a specialist would care about. The analogy I would make here is to teaching. If I tell undergraduate students that gametophytes are haploid and sporophytes are diploid they can later learn that this is not always true. If I start off with the exception (apogamy, apospory, polyploidy, etc.) they see it as tergiversation and become disgruntled. I think W should follow similar guidelines--aim for the general public and be comphrensible. And then include the details as separate pages or sections.

I would also argue that the fact that some plants have sequential bisexuality does not belie dioicous meaning unisex. The fact that some fish might change sex does not render it less true that they are male when you look at them or that the species is, as all vertebrates are, unisex. The term dioicous has a meaning that is useful to describe some gametphytes. The fact that some (and it is primarily Platyzoma according to the article) are more complex is interesting. The terms do not quite fit this situation, so we need some new terms or a more detailed explanation (like diachronous bisexuality, which term seems to be unique the paper you found). Still we should keep the terms that apply to most examples uncluttered.

As far as complications go, we could go on about how Equisetum is homosporous but seems to produce some functionally unisex gametophytes, how Platyzoma has heterospory but is exosporic, how many fern gametophytes suppress the production of archegonia in other gametophytes, leading to functionally unisex gametophytes, and on and on. And I think we should. But we should leave the basic terms as basic terms.Michaplot (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We agree that WP shouldn't make too much of this. On the other hand, WP is a place that undergraduates turn to for information (sadly too often for chunks of text that they copy and paste if their teachers aren't sufficiently vigilant), so I would like to be sure that explanations of terms are as clear and as precise as they can be. I think the Bateman & DiMichele paper, particularly Table 2, is actually very useful in laying out some terminology very clearly. How much of it, if any, should be used in a WP article is another matter entirely. But we should be clear that there is a difference, albeit rather subtle, between "-oicy" and "-sexual". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In looking over some references and the general usage in papers, I think I can see where the problem lies with these terms. It appears that there are at least two separate uses of the terms di-/monoicous and di-/monoecious. The most common usage seems to apply these terms to species (or other taxa). People also apply these terms to individuals. So a genus can be described as typically monoicous, or a particular plant in your front yard might be said to be monoicous. This, as with many terms in botany, is sloppily applied, which seems unfortunate to me. I see that I too have been vague in my use of these terms.

So, I think I would generally use the terms unisexual or bisexual to describe individual gametophytes. So I would say that leptosporangiate ferns produce bisexual gametophytes, though in some cases they might produce functionally unisex gametophytes. I think I will restrict my use of the -oicy (and -oecy) terms to species or other taxa. So I will say that leptosporangiate ferns are typically monoicous. If some manage to produce unisex gametophytes, that is interesting, and if it is the rule in a particular species, then it might warrant a different term, like sequentially dioicous. Ultimately, we are dealing with nature and there is a wide range of patterns, and in some cases variation is arrayed on continua. On this welter of variation we are attempting to impose distinct categories--an enterprise that is destined to fall short.

In any case, I would contend that the terms bisexual or unisex are descriptive of gametophytes. Dioicous/monoicous can refer to the sexual systems of species or other taxa. A monoicous species would produce bisexual gametophytes. If dioicous/monoicous is used to refer to an individual gametophyte, then the terms would be exactly the same as bisexual/unisexual. In the case of Platyzoma or others, where there are unisex gametophytes that over time produce both types of gametangia, we clearly need a different term, such as sequentially dioicous, but this does not, in my opinion, warrant qualifying the basic meaning of dioicous, monoicous, et al.Michaplot (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

I inserted a warning in about 2010 here in a vain attempt to stop people adding incorrect interwikis. I removed it earlier today, as interwikis no longer work this way. I have asked those kind people at Wikidata to resolve the rest of the issue over there. I don't think it is needed either at the foot, for the reason given above, or the head, where we have {{Distinguish}}, however I will leave it to you guys to decide. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

Here is a link to the wikidata request. Not sure anything is being done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

Evolution of Monoicous

I’m gonna try and do research and see if there are sources on the evolution of Monoicous.CycoMa (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to dioicy (botany)

Some of the information here should be moved to Dioicy (botany).CycoMa (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What specifically?Plantsurfer 11:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: the article mentions the etymology and history of dioicy. That should be moved.CycoMa (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is fine as it is and should be left intact. However, I would agree that the article on Dioicy needs its own etymology section.Plantsurfer 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)