Talk:Syntrichia caninervis

Infobox common name

Infobox says it is called "Tortula moss" but the article doesn't say that in the body. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Too much reliance on a single ref.

A quick survey suggests that there are a number of studies of this moss. The article would be better with broader set of refs. The one that is used, the Innovations article, does have some review content at the beginning and it seems to line up with other sources. So it's not horrible ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on it, but I will on and off here. Any help you wish to offer is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a pass. Alternative / additional ref for the radiation and temperature tolerance would be good, because the Innovations article is really about the mars thing.

A paragraph of normal plant info on the species would also be nice to have. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There's apparently a lot of information, so I need to collate. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the interwiki links have all the information and more. It's just a matter of adding it at this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you removed the Mars information, but there's a lot of sources (since 2003) about how the deserts on Earth are analogues to the Martian environment, so this isn't so much a crystal ball claim, but rather an active area of research that should be represented given how long it has been going on. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's my view. Is there a major effort around Syntrichia caninervis for this goal? Then a full subsection seems justified given more content and refs. Or is it just a mention in one paper? Then at most a sentence in the previous subsection. In either case the sentence that says researchers are doing research is not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I figured out how to fix it, but I won't be able to get to it until later. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In either case the sentence that says researchers are doing research is not knowledge

I think it's a special case, since we are dealing with astrobiology which can't realistically send a specimen to Mars and test it, not to mention the contamination issues by themselves which would even prevent them from doing that. Sure, they could probably test it in a closed environment on the surface, I suppose, but even then that would be a long way off in the future. Given the pressing issues around the OoL, and the idea that bryophytes are some of the earliest plants on land here at home, making ecosystems possible, it is likely that we will be doing research that leads to theories which contributes to provisional knowledge for the foreseeable future. Because of these special circumstances (we can't use a time machine to investigate the OoL in the past, and we can't easily test these ideas in the future), I think we can safely discuss these topics in the context of a Wikipedia article, unlike other domains of knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure we are talking about the same thing. The sentence

• "However, further research and testing in actual space environments are needed to fully assess its viability for extraterrestrial colonization."

is, in my opinion, not suitable for wikipedia. It is a combination of trivial ("further research" is always "needed") and dubious (a test that would "fully assess" any life form for the stated purpose would be "extraordinary" and need a correspondingly extraordinary references). Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I can fix her it. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: The Italian Wikipedia has an interesting formulation that I like: "It has been hypothesized that S. caninervis could be used as a pioneer species on Mars to create the soil conditions necessary to support other plant species." Any objections to this line of thinking? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"It has been hypothesized..." needs to be specific and referenced. "Random internet denizen hypothesized..." is completely different from "Based on a review of extremophile studies, X Y hypothesized..." Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I was just throwing that out as one idea that I want to see in the article. I will get back to you later. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Nice work on this article! Johnjbarton (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Still no plant description, but will get to it later, I hope. I've also contacted the primary editor who created this article, and I'm hoping they will show up shortly to help. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)