Talk:Poaceae

Untitled

I always hate to be contrary, but why did you (UtherSRG) reformat the taxobox in a way that is inconsistent with all the other taxoboxes at Wikipedia and call it an "update" ? The format you used is (IMHO) not at all an improvement and can cause difficulty to follow in many situation since you are essentially removing centering from the title boxes and centering the text/list boxes. This approach will not work without considerable effort on taxoboxes with long or complex listings of taxa. Also, it is generally standard practice to center things like titles and pictures and not center following text; or not center anything. - Marshman 18:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it true that the grasses grow from the bottom, while other plants grow from the top? AxelBoldt 09:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grasses have intercalary meristems in their leaves and culms that produce new tissues at the base of blades or internodes.--Curtis Clark 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge species list with article

I would like to merge the species list of Poaceae inside the taxobox of this article...Qwertzy2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertzy2 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This article needs to contain information about when, where and how grass appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.110.183 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn grass

What type of grass is found in parks and lawns? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kisch (talk • contribs) .

It depends on what part of the world you are talking about. Many different species are used.--Curtis Clark 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them I guess - I think the 'cultivation and use' section should deal with uses other than for food, but I know nothing about it. Kisch

Done.--Curtis Clark 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cereals, corn(s), maize

Would someone familiar with the details of both American and British English please explicate the typically confusing differences in terminology.

Is "corn" a British equivalent to "cereal"? Make "maize" into "maize (American English corn). Where does the word "grain" stand in relation to "corn"/"cereal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.216.101 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught (in England) that, at one time, "corn" simply meant the primary grain used for flour production. In England, this was wheat, in parts of Scotland, it was rye, and in much of the Americas it was maize. As North American usage became more prevalent, the interpretation of corn as meaning maize has become more common.

"Cereal grasses" is a useful but vague phrase. It generally refers to the members of the wheatgrass tribe (Triticeae) that are used for baking and flour production - wheats, rye, and barley. I don't think it is usually used to refer to corn/maize, rice, or teff - or the other grasses that are used for baking in other parts of the world - but that could be simply because I have only worked in parts of the world where the primary flour-producing grasses are the wheatgrasses. "Cereal" can also be used to refer to non-grasses that are used for flour - buckwheat etc. It is a vague but useful word.

Grain generally means a dry, starchy seed or fruit that one grinds to make flour. Technically, in grasses, this would be the fruit (a caryopsis) which is inseparable from the seed. It is also sometimes used to refer to dry fruits/seeds of plants, such as buckwheat, that are not grasses.

In reference to grasses: grain is a much easier term than caryopsis; fruit, a logical alternative, conjures up images of fleshy things like apricots, plums, and oranges; seed is probably not used simply because people tend to think of seeds as things that are inside something else - and it is impossible to get the seed out of a grass grain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Barkworth (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There is no tradition of rye cultivation in Scotland. The most important cereal crops in Scotland are barley, wheat and oats in that order.Plantsurfer 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether rye is grown in Scotland or not, all four of these are in the Pooideae subfamily of Poaceae, and are therefore grasses. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. My point was to correct the error in the previous statement which stated falsely that rye was the primary grain used for flour production in Scotland. Plantsurfer 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation and uses

Edit conflict!

I'm having trouble with grains being described in "northern Asia" (formerly "northern Eurasia") as I don't think of Siberia as a major wheat belt. Perhaps "Europe and western Asia" would be clearer.

In general I was having problems with the geographical descriptions -- one crop per region -- as of course today the US for example produces everything. I tried to alter that to "Historically..." but got overridden.

Perhaps something like "primary" or "leading" crops would clarify that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.216.101 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams

I dissected a wheat spike and made the three pictures Spica_spiculae.pgn, Anatomia.png and Spicula_dissecta.png that are in the Commons. They were SVGs, but I couldn't upload them properly and so I converted them to PNGs. I think that a more detailed desciption of the peculiar flower/fruit of Poaceae would be very useful, especially if presented with pictures of a real spike (not schemes). I could do it, but unfortunately I don't know the nomenclature in the english language (and so I cannot even translate the notes in the images), can someone help me? i need to know:

The name of the two bracts that protect the spiklets (in italian called glume)
The name of each of the two bracts protecting each flower, internal and esternal (in italian called glumetta interna and glumetta esterna)

Have a look at the pictures, any help is welcome. Aelwyn 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No pain, no gain. Aelwyn 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing lead

What are "true grasses"? Please cleanup. FrummerThanThou 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeaceae?

Has anyone heard that the genus Zea was moved to Zaeceae? I was told this, but I'm having trouble confirming it. All accounts of Zeaceae that I can find show it as a synonym for Poaceae. ++ Arx Fortis 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zea is definitely in the Poaceae, no need to mention Zeaceae --Graminophile 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn Grass

Specific type of lawn grass in certain areas of the world needs to be mentioned Complex-Algorithm-Interval 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a long list, I suspect. I just finished mowing mine, which is a mix of Cynodon dactylon, Stenotaphrum secundatum, and Festuca arundinacea, with a bit of Digitaria sanguinalis and Bromus diandrus as weeds, and there are a number of other coomon lawn species used in the region (southern California). It might even warrant a separate article, List of lawn grasses.--Curtis Clark 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poaceae (formerly known as Gramineae)

Yes, more and more people are using Poaceae, particularly in North America, but it would be more accurate to say Poaceae( alternatively known as Gramineae). The two names are equally correct.

Mary Barkworth (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grass and society section: erroneous dates?

In the "Grass and society" section it is mentioned that grasses "have been used to make paper since at least as early as 2400 B.C." Paper is generally acknowledged to have been invented in the 2nd century in China. Papyrus, on the other hand, has indeed been around since the 3rd millenium BC, but Cyperus papyrus belongs to the cyperaceae family, not the poaceae. Would it be ok to edit the date and say 2nd century instead of 2400BC?

There is I think another issue with beer. The section says "Also, the primary ingredient of beer is usually barley or wheat, both grasses that have been used for this purpose for over 1000 years" but beer based on malted barley has been around for much, much longer than that (around the 3rd millenium BC if the wiki article on the history of beer is to be believed). So I would suggest changing the date to that. Julienvr (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subfamily classification?

I've added a "citation needed" to the description of the "most recent classification" of Poaceae. Which classification is this? For instance, wikipedia is listing Aristida in tribe Aristideae of subfamily Arundinoideae... I've done a brief literature search, and am not coming up with any studies that suggest this classification. Family-wide phylogenies (e.g., that of the Grass Phylogeny Working Group) suggest that this classification is polyphyletic (Danthonioideae & Chloridoideae would also have to be included in Arundinoideae to yield a monophyletic subfamily), and recognize Aristida in a separate subfamily Aristidoideae. So, maybe I've missed some of the relevant literature... but, as it is, this page provides a subfamilial classification that is both unsourced and, so far as I can tell, inconsistent with phylogenetic results. So, where does this classification come from and what is the justification for using it?Paalexan (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like this has been fixed here... although some of the other grass-related pages (e.g., the page for Arundinoideae) are now inconsistent with the subfamilies presented in this page... Paalexan (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gramineae

So what happened to Gramineae? All the article says is that Poaceae is also called Gramineae before mentioning later where the name Poaceae comes from. If you're going to tell us where the name Poaceae came from, shouldn't you at least also tell us where the name Gramineae went to? 27.33.121.123 (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gramineae remains a valid alternative name for the grasses. Note that I have corrected your spelling of the name. Plantsurfer 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Grass into Poaceae

I suggest that we don't need two articles that both cover essentially the same topic, and that any useful material in Grass should be merged into Poaceae. Plantsurfer 12:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merger. Note that if folks agree on the merge but disagree on which article is sunk, can they please state this rather than just scupper the proposal? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging grass into Poaceae. But the redirects graminid, graminoid, and graminoids should not be retargetted to Poaceae. The redirecting terms can have two distinct meanings; traditionally they refer to a paraphyletic form classification (grasses/sedges/rushes), but they have been used in recent decades as names for monophyletic clades (as a clade name, graminoid/graminid excludes sedges and rushes). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plantsurfer 20:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I do support a merger but I don't believe the resulting article should be titled Poaceae. I think the title should be Grass just as the title of the Rosa page is Rose. "Grass" is the much, much, more commonly accepted term, and therefore I propose the merger be the other way around: Poaceae be merged into Grass. --MCEllis (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to that. I think it would set a precedent that could lead to the dismantling of articles on other major taxa. Poaceae is one of the largest plant groups, of immense importance to the biosphere and to human economy. To lose the definitive article that states what they are would be a mistake. Plantsurfer 00:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "Grass" is clearly synonymous with Poaceae, at least in scientific literature. A short article on graminoids should be sufficient to cover the functional/morphological group of Poaceae + Cyperaceae + Juncaceae; otherwise both of the other families have well established common names. Graminid refers to a clade in Poales and could either link to that page or an own article. Keeping "Poaceae" rather than the common name as title seems to be in line with other plant family articles. Tylototriton (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged Grass into Poaceae. I have tried to do this conservatively, but that means work is still required to clean up. In particular there are many points where citations are needed and some thinning out/compacting would be desirable in places - such as the sections on lawns and sports pitches. I have already had a go at some of this - please, please help to get this article into shape. Plantsurfer 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for merging. I've created/expanded articles on graminoids and graminid clade. Tylototriton (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Plantsurfer 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glume redirect

I notice that glume redirects to chaff, which is not identical in meaning by any stretch. Other parts of grass flowers, such as palea (botany), lemma (botany) and lodicule have their own short articles. I am proposing to write up a section in Poaceae describing the structure and nomenclature of the grass inflorescence, and I think it would be appropriate to have the glume redirect reversed and a short article created. What is the formal procedure for reversing a redirect such as this? Plantsurfer 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantsurfer Why, just delete the redirect markup (#redirect [[Chaff]]) and substitute your text just as for any other new article. No special permission needed!: Noyster (talk), 20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is unclear: Source link is dead

The article claims that "A multituberculate mammal with "grass-eating" adaptations seems to suggest that grasses were already around at 120 mya", but the source given (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/article-expired/#.V3Bi_zWrlyF) is dead, and does not look credible. The article about multituberculate mammals contains the same claim, with the same source (arguably added by the same editor). I did a Google search and I can't find any publication that supports this. I suggest to remove the claim from both articles unless a proper source can be found.--Renerpho (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119054412/http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/conservation/Pages/sprinkling.aspx to http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/conservation/Pages/sprinkling.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turf section

The "turf" section could be condensed into one paragraph in my opinion, I don't think we need details on every sport, especially as there are separate articles. Opinions? Tylototriton (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Plantsurfer 19:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of you to ask. I'm willing to trust your judgment. Thumb up. 19:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.224.4.172 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sheep is the plural and not sheeps which is really anoying when people say that 2A02:C7D:6A36:9800:B0D6:93B2:9C2C:4ABE (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. There's no instance of "sheeps" in the article. NiciVampireHeart 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This website: https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-plants-in-the-family-Poaceae-2036227

Could be used as a reference for the opening paragraph of the page.

"With more than 10,000 species, the grass family, Poaceae, is one of the largest families of flowering plants. Its members are monocotyledons and feature leaves with parallel veins; the flowers are usually wind-pollinated. Many grasses are cultivated as ornamental plants and for lawns, and several are staple cereal crops. The following is a list of some of the major genera and species in Poaceae, arranged alphabetically by common name."

quoted from the above website, britannica.com Canteberry (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The lead paragraph of an article usually does not need to be cited for information that is clearly given and sourced in the body of the article, as it is here. The claims in the lead are not controversial and the sources given for the members of the family are definitive academic sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move (non-admin closure) -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poaceae → Grass – The WP:COMMONNAME by far for these species is "grass", and I think this is so overwhelmingly obvious and ubiquitous that this should be self evident to most users. Should follow the convention of rose and lupus where the common name is chosen over the overtly academic name. Ortizesp (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree this feels strongly self-evident. There's a reason much of the article uses the word grass. CMD (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is so overwhelmingly not comparable to the example of rose! The Poaceae is a huge family of over 700 genera. It is self-evidently NOT a single genus like Rose, to which there is a redirect from Rosa (genus). Bamboos are not commonly referred to as 'grasses; yet these are in the Poaceae. Cereal crops (eg. maize, wheat, oats) are not commonly referred to as grasses; yet these are in the Poacaeae. Reeds in the Arundinoideae are also not called grasses, yet these are in the Poaceae. Rice crops are generally not called a grass; yet these are in the Poaceae. Whilst it might be OK for simplicity purposes to refer to the 'grass family' when we mean the Poaceae (which is just what the article does in places when it refers to 'grasses'), it is simply not the same thing to say that the Poaceae can be called 'grass'. This move proposal is simply flawed, and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here. We already have a redirect to the Poaceae from Grass and Grass Family (just as we have for the Rosaceae and the Orchidaceae - see Rose family/Orchid family), to name but two). So this move proposal would only serves to obfuscate, and only please those who really don't appreciate the breadth and enormous significance of numerous members of this Family which are never referred to as 'grass', but which may collectively and for convenience - be referred to as grasses. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Anecdotally, I have heard most of these mentioned plants referred to as grasses before. (Wheat is even called wheatgrass in diet drinks and the like.) I can't think of what else they are usually described as, besides the more general "plants". CMD (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard them referred to as grasses. I've had multiple people say to me "Did you know that bamboo is actually a grass?" Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I also support the alternative suggested below of "Grasses". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this article: "Poaceae (/poʊˈeɪsiaɪ/) or Gramineae is a large and nearly ubiquitous family of monocotyledonous flowering plants known as grasses, commonly referred to collectively as grass". If this is erroneous, it should be changed. Otherwise, per common name, this should be moved. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: I think you make a very good point. Members of the Poaceae family can be referred to as 'grasses', but the family cannot simply be called 'grass'. That is an error in the article lede which does need amending. If the article were to be renamed - and I maintain that it should not - then it should be moved to 'Grasses' and not simply 'Grass'. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Use common name whenever possible. Similarly, we call it a cat and not "Felis catus", and we call it a dog and not "Canis familiaris". Sanjay7373 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wholly invalid comparison. The Poaceae family contains around 12,000 separate species, collectively referred to as 'grasses'. Can you supply a valid example whereby WP:COMMONNAME has been applied to such a broad taxonomic level to a group of so many totally different species? The example you give of a single species is totally irrelevant here, and only serves to mislead others who might wish to express their considered opinion. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bird. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: Poaceae are hundreds of species of grasses with very different characteristics, hugely important in terms of resources and ecosystem services, and the concept should not be reduced to the green stuff on our lawns. However I would support a renaming of the article to "Grasses", which carries an appropriate implication of diversity. Plantsurfer 22:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles are generally rendered as singular, though Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) does give in exception for "Articles on groups or classes of specific things", so "Grasses" might be an acceptable alternative. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support grass or grasses. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: What Plantsurfer said. "Grasses" is the best compromise. Leo Breman (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Yes, overall, the family may be referred to as grasses. But it includes bamboos. The English name "grass" typically means a relatively soft, herbaceous plant, not a permanently woody plant like a bamboo. The scientific term "Poaceae" includes all members of the family, regardless of their habit. This is a classic case of taking one component of WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, and ignoring others, in particular WP:PRECISION. English, like all natural languages, derives much of the meaning of words from the context. "Grass" can exclude bamboos, reeds, etc. in some contexts, and include them in others. "Grass" may mean "lawn grass" as in "I cut the grass today". This is an encyclopedia; we should be at least as (if not more) concerned about precision than using titles which are based on natural language, with all its context-dependency.

this feels strongly self-evident – we have an encylopedia precisely because things are not self-evident. Is it "self-evident" that the plants in the image here are grasses? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article title should be unambiguous. The common name is sometimes used for the whole family , but it is also used more specifically for some members of the family (based on particular morphology) to exclusion of others or more loosely to include members of other families (rushes, sedges). It is used in different senses in different contexts (e.g. grass-fed livestock are fed on grass to the exclusion of grains). Poaceae unambiguously refers to the family. — Jts1882 | talk 06:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1) as already stated Poaceae is unambiguous, while the meaning of grass is contextual. Note also the existence of viper's grass (a composite), Good Friday grass (a rush), yellow/blue-eyed grasses (iridaceous), sawgrass (a sedge), seagrasses, and probably others. 2) consistency of naming of botanical families. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons given immediately above. Poaceae is the only specific name that describes this group of plants. Disambig pages can easily deal with redirection of common names where needed. The reference to Rose at the top of the discussion is irrelevant - that is simply an article about a genus and largely about the horticultural aspects of that genus. The relevant equivalent article Rosaceae is the relevant article for comparison. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I frequently just call this family "grasses" but acknowledge bamboos are not seen as "grasses" by many, and similar for reed, sugarcane etc. Poaceae is unambiguous. Tylototriton (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we should be using the common name in articles, not the scientific name, if possible. Interstellarity (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has been pointed out above, neither "grass" nor "grasses" is the English name that corresponds to "Poaceae". If you really want an English name, it should be "grass family". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The common name is 'grass family', not 'grass'. Bamboos or cereal crops are grouped into the same taxonomic unit, but they are not grass themselves. Esiymbro (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources which say "wheat and grass" and similar, and this is reflected by many oppose votes here, but it is wrong to state definitively that "they are not grass themselves". CMD (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2020 (×UTC)

Oppose "Grass" is not particularly accurate, as explained above. I would support "grasses" or "grass family", but tenuously. Here, I think accuracy and precision is more important than the common name. The overwhelming majority of plant articles are scientifically titled instead of given their common name title because of the fact that plant common names are much more voluminous and confusing than animal common names. Take a look at Cynodon dactylon, with more than a dozen common names. There are numerous species which are called grasses commonly, but are not in the Poaceae. Thus I think that retaining Poaceae is the most accurate title. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The terms Poaceae and grass are not totally interchangeable. Poaceae is a scientific description of all plants currently deemed to be within one family. Grass is a general description for some plants that look like some of the plants within Poaceae. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comment

I think that the page Poaceae and Grass should be separated. This was merged by User:Plantsurfer in a small vote of 4 to 1 on 26 February 2016. The reasons are below:

5 votes is not enough for such a fundamental page. The voting process should have been much larger, and opened up to the greater public for more comments and arguments.
I think the concept "grass" is much more ubiquitous that Poaceae, and has many more uses beyond just the scientific. Poaceae should refer to just the scientific classification, and grass to the non-scientific group. They have some overlap, but are also very distinct.
I started the move request above, and the reality is that Poaceae and grasses are not synonymous or exactly equivalent. Grasses tends to refer to certain strains, some of which "(rushes, sedges)" are not in Poaceae at all, so you can say that grass is a non-diffusing category.

At worst, there should be a DAB page at the base name, although I contend grass should probably have a page for itself. I don't think it makes sense for the more popular and universally used concept of grass to have been the merged into the more specific poaceae.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the fact that your statement is not neutral, this is not an RfC matter. Please use the methods described at WP:SPLIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, can User:Redrose64 expand on what is not neutral in the RfC. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as I think that; 5 votes is not enough; I think the; Poaceae should; there should be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of procedural matters, I support the split of articles. Grass is very obviously the WP:COMMONNAME for itself. My reading of the RfC above is that grass is not synonymous with poaceae, so a redirect from the latter to the former is imprecise; very well, but then the articles should be separate. As I see, poaceae should be about the species, which includes most of the current content, while grass should include the "Lawn and ornamental use" and "Sports turf" sections. An easy way to do the split would be to put those two sections together with a one-sentence intro.

If the articles are kept together, I would suggest at the very least a hatnote pointing to lawn. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grass is too imprecise a term to serve as an article title. Sometimes it does mean 'turf', 'lawn', etc., sometimes it means plants and species of plants. There should certainly be hatnotes as per Tigraan's comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many terms are imprecise and still serve as article titles - for instance glass means both "some transparent material to make windows or cookware" or "any amorphous solid". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As above, Grass and Poaceae are clearly not synonymous; but rather the former refers to the WP:COMMONNAME and the later is referring to the species. I concur that the WP:SPLIT should occur as outlined above by Tigraan. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC) (responded for RfC)[reply]

@Waddie96: so what would an article with the title "Grass" be about? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-eyed grass and eel grass maybe, many people call Cannabis grass also. Hardyplants (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think many or any people think about Sisyrinchium or Vallisneria when you say "grass"; they're dependent on their qualifiers blue-eyed and eel. Since Poaceae is the obvious primary topic for grass, grass (disambiguation) seems sufficient. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had asked me three weeks ago to guess what page grass redirects to, my reactions would have been first "what, it redirects somewhere?", second "I guess lawn?", third "I have no idea". I did not know the word "Poaceae", nor "Sisyrinchium", nor "Vallisneria". I dare believe that I am at least in the top 20% of my (first-world) country when it comes to biology knowledge. That XKCD comes to mind. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: (and others) Here’s a draft for the grass article. It’s bad, but it’s better than the current non-existence of the page.

I mean, we could have that page at Introduction to grass, with a hatnote This article is a non-technical introduction to the subject. But what is a reasonable approach for quantum mechanics looks absolutely ridiculous here. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I do appreciate the effort you have made, but as the repeated uses of {{main}} show, it's really just a collection of abstracts of other articles. I still don't think that this sense of "grass" constitutes a coherent topic for an encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it belongs on a page called "Turf" not grass. "Turf Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster 1 · the upper layer of soil bound into a thick mat by roots of grass and other plants ; 2 · land covered with grass." Grass or Grasses to me in encompassed by the the large but diverse family Poaceae. Hardyplants (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discusssions. Handy links to the related discussions from 2006 , 2013, the 2016 merge proposal, and a 2020 RM. – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Practicalities. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it will make sense to examine all the incoming links to Grass, as many of them have will have more suitable targets. There are currently 3,936 such links, though the scale shouldn't be as gargantuan as it seems: there are, for example, 864 links of the type [[Grass|turf]] [1], or 287 links in airport infoboxes for the runway surface type [2]. Oh, and we should decide what to do with the redirect Grasses as well. – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest leaving Grasses → Poaceae in place. The plural is much more likely to refer to plant species (even if not exactly synonymous with Poaceae) than to an area of plant-covered ground. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal for Grass not to redirect here anymore, though I'm not sure if it should be the title of the dab page (currently Grass (disambiguation)), or some reworked version of the article that existed at the title before 2016. Such an article will have to be about the folk notion of 'grass' (similar to what we have for Hill and Mountain), though it may be difficult to distinguish that from an WP:OR medley that simply connects the dots between the several common meanings of the word.
I don't think the family is the primary topic for the word "grass". Yes, it is used commonly like that in the scientific literature, but it has other, probably more common, meanings. The OED lists, among others: 1a "Herbage [...] usually restricted to low-growing, non-cereal plants of the family Poaceae [...] or other plants resembling these"; 2c "Any of numerous other plants [...] esp. those thought to resemble the members of Poaceae (or more widely Poales)" (this does appear to roughly correspond to the article Graminoid), and 5a "Grass-covered ground; a grassy area [..] a lawn; a green". – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to see a definition of grass that excludes cereals: sounds to me very antiquated. And contradictory given one of OED's definition of cereal: A name given to those plants of the family Graminaceæ [aka Poaceae] or grasses which are cultivated for their seed as human food. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not antiquated (the entry for "grass" is fully updated to the third edition of 2019, with the last modification made in December 2021), but represents the most common meaning of the word in everyday English – most ordinary people, for example, wouldn't think of a field of wheat as being covered with grass. There's no contradiction either (unless you expect each word to have one and only one meaning): the meaning of the word "grass" in the definition you provide is OED's 2b "Any of various monocyledonous plants comprising the large cosmopolitan family Poaceae [...]". – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Is this a split proposal now?) Oppose. "Grass", without a qualifier, is a vernacular term only rarely used to described species outside of Poaceae. To accommodate fringe definitions there is a disambiguation page. I agree with Tigraan that the hatnote(s) on Poaceae could be clarified to include a link to lawn and potentially and other graminoids (i.e. grass-like) groups, e.g. Cyperaceae and Juncaceae. But an article about lawns/sod/turf entitled "grass" doesn't make sense because grass is a much broader topic than its human uses, and the topics lawns/sod/turf comprise more than grass. The depth seems covered and linked pretty comprehensively in Poaceae#Uses. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support coverage of the distinction between Poaceae and grasses as described by Ortizesp above. I have not looked at this to determine where that should occur, one or two separate pages. If there is sufficient material/if there are sufficient non-Poaceae grass species then I support splitting as he/she suggests. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There are no non-Poaceae grass species, so a split on that basis would not be logical.Plantsurfer 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A split article would be very confusing with the potential for considerable overlap. The current article brings together all the relevant information in one place. I could envisage an article such as Uses of grass which might be a disambig page to Lawn, Meadow or might be an article discussing bowling greens, cricket pitches, horticultural lawns etc. etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems that the proposed change would only reflect on one of the uses for SOME grasses, but grasses have many others as reflected on the Poaceae page. I would support better pages for "Lawn" and "Turf" with improved redirects. Hardyplants (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do support the idea of improving pages for Turf or Lawn, but a redirect to Turf or Lawn I oppose. Linking from the word "grass" to Turf or Lawns would be overlinking in most circumstances - per MOS:OL everyday words like "mountain" or "river" shouldn't be linked, and grass with its meaning of a turf or lawn is an everyday use. A cursory look through what links to the Grass redirect page also suggests Poaceae is a sensible redirect, since most contexts are more technical in scope: pages aren't linking to a turf page every time "grass" is mentioned in an article. Pagliaccious (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least for now Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that articles shouldn't always gravitate towards technical and specialist approaches to a topic, I'm just not especially clear on what this split would be aimed to do or how we'd define "grass". As far as I could tell from a little looking around we already have the articles we want at Lawn, Ornamental grass, Grassland, and probably others. I don't think the existence of a plant known as "blue eyed grass" settles everything, so I'm not firmly attached to "a redirect to Poaceae is the only possible thing to put at Grass" but I also am not clear there is a problem which a split would improve. Kingdon (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this page to indicate that the family Poaceae was “formerly called Gramineae”. This is to make the information up-to-date and to reduce confusion. AlfalfaMail (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜 melecie talk - 00:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening says that Gramineae is an alternative name, which is correct. Adding "formerly" is problematic, because although very few if any botanists use this name now, Art. 18.5 of the ICNafp allows it, giving "Poaceae" as an alternative name. So "Gramineae" could be sourced to Art. 18.5, but not "formerly". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The linking of "grass"

It's currently being decided on the best way to link (or unlink) the term "grass" in the context of the surface type of places (like stadiums or runways). The results are going to affect around 1,500 articles. The discussions are:

There's a further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#"X is a species of grass", which is concerned with articles about species. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:248:C000:9EB:A93B:D8D5:D4F9:FC78 (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can i edit this page

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...that being said, the page was semi'd in 2018. Maybe it’s time to unprotect. I asked the protecting admin. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stems?

Please clairify the difference between leaf sheaths and stems. Grass leaves are comprised of a blade and sheath and grow from nodes at the soil surface, and leaves emerge from the stem through the sheath of the older leaf, forming a tiller. The short stems, with very tight internodes, are at the soil surface. I was taught that tillers are not stems. Don't stems have nodes that contain meristem tissues? Won't stems respond to cuts with growth from the nodes? Since we don't see that growth from tillers isn't is misleading to call them "stems"? Thanks, https://ezcurralab.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2020-05/13_poaceae.pdf 2001:56A:F862:BB00:30B8:6412:EB27:AC7E (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]