Talk:Drosera rotundifolia

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)