Talk:Venus flytrap/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Venus Flytrap

It has been scientifically proven that it is found in the Rainforest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Drdla Melvin (talk • contribs) 10:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Q: In the article it says that the seeds "require stratification to germinate". I'm not an experienced grower myself but I have have spoken to some who are and they seem to agree that stratification is not neccesary. Can anyone back this claim? yes those things are very important to the cycle.

Q: The statement in this article "It's very rare that a trap will catch even three insects in its lifetime" refers to one leaf trap, or the entire plant? - AdunaicLayman

A: Statement applies to a single leaf. The plant's lifelime prey total can be quite large, depending on how many years it lives. Main article has been clarified. -Mr.Logic 15:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Q: Statement made that the plant is found in limited range in the Carolinas, but the muskeg of southeastern Alaska contains a lot Venus flytraps. I'm not a botanist, but I've been there and looked. And have pictures. 98.245.24.250 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Ruas

As far as I can tell, the plants you've seen in Alaska are introduced, but I can't find out when or why. They have also been deliberately introduced to bogs in Florida, California, and Washington. They are not native, though. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cancer

While physicians, medical physicists and medical statisticians agree, or science demonstrates, that venus flytrap parts or extracts, among a whole host of other things, are not very effective at impeding or fighting cancers, there ought to be more information (instances of scandals perhaps) about how these parts or extracts are peddled as cures or as "better than" or "on par" with effective or accepted treatments. (I mention "accepted" because even the effectiveness, perhaps benefit, of accepted treatments can be debatable.) -- Lindberg 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Whose genitalia?

In the opening paragraph, it says:

The plant's name refers to Venus, the Roman goddess of love, after an apparent similiarity between the plant's leaves and the male genitalia, and the plant's behavior, luring the unsuspecting to their deaths.

Should this be changed to say that the leaves are similar to female genitalia?Pkeck 16:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes, female. but more than just the physical appearance, the plant was named named at a time when women were considered "temptresses". see

http://science.howstuffworks.com/venus-flytrap1.htm for one such mention, search the web for more.

Snaring secrets of Venus flytrap revealed

Interesting information which could be incorporated. —Christiaan 21:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Huh? ==i dont get it what does it eat? The first paragraph says, A common US name for the plant is tipitiwitchet. I have never heard this name used before. Is this a regional thing? If so, what region? Or am I just lacking in knowledge on this issue? --Adun 04:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard it. It sounds British to me, although I am not sure. I live in the Midwest, where many strange names come from (like bubbler), and I've never heard it said. So I'm removing it. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:28, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)}

well its native to North and South Carolina so odds are its a Carolina thing. I can't imagine such a particular common name arising anywhere else (i.e. where its not native) Jasongetsdown 21:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Tipitiwitchet" explanation here: [1] or rather here you mean: http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq2880.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.252.228 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

w/c

in the Philippines' famous comic Darna w/c is used by the villain Flaviana turning Venus flytraps into a big monster as her defense.

What does w/c mean? Bill52270 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea either. Someone needs to answer this! Vimescarrot 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tipitiwitchet" explaination here: [2]

What happened?

Someone has edited Venus flytrap, by changing, erasing, and writing about the Man's Happy Place! -- Hurricane Devon (Talk) 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just another unimpressive vandalism attempt. Properly & quickly reverted. Mr.Logic 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Family Dionaeceae

I read that scientists put the Venus flytrap in a new family named Dionaeceae. -- Hurricane Devon (Talk) 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's Dionaeaceae. This family is not recommended by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Dionaea, Aldrovanda, Drosera and Drosophyllum have all been placed in monogeneric families at one point or another, but only the Drosophyllaceae is currently recommended, as it seems more closely related to the Dioncophyllaceae than to the rest of the Droseraceae. The Droseraceae (minus Drosophyllum) appears to be monophyletic, and hardly merits splitting into three families, given that two would contain just one species. polypompholyx 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The goddess Venus & her job description

User:Methegreat did an edit claiming "Venus (Aphrodite) has nothing to do with plant life." I beg to differ, as does Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075054?tocId=9075054 Venus was originally associated with fields & gardens, only later taking on the additional job description of love. If she isn't associated with plants, the name "Venus' Flytrap" makes no sense at all. -Mr.Logic 20:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I always heard the name had nothing to do with the goddess Venus. Instead, it was called a "Venus fly-trap" because it looked so bizarre it must have come from the planet Venus. I can't remember, though, where I read this.Rt66lt 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There's some information on where the Venus flytrap got it's name from here ... How did the Venus flytrap get it's nameWomblina 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have just rewritten the article so it flows better and doesn't constantly repeat and contradict itself. I have removed any unsubstantiated claims and added a few journal references. If anyone wants to add anything new, it'd be a lot more useful to expand the habitat section than to add yet another popular culture reference! The old article had more information about manga comics than about botany... polypompholyx 12:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! You very bold to attempt a total re-write, and I was sceptical when it popped up in my watch list. I was greatly pleased & surprised at the quality of the result. (Featured article, anyone?) I noticed how you preserved the consisus wording from the various quibbles in recent history.

I do have one complaint - in the revision, you introduced a statment about how the plant evolved. I don't think we want to introduce an ID vs Evolution war here, especially when that statment could easily be made more NPOV.

Good work!

-Mr.Logic 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a total rewrite: a lot of it was just rejigging what was already there and making it more coherent. I recently had a whinge on the talk page for Carnivorous plant - an article that I wrote almost entirely from scratch, but which has since only accumulated ill-written cruft and a few extra commas. I thought that if I'm prepared to whinge, I ought at least be prepared to fix other pages I find important! I don't think it's anywhere near good enough for a featured article: it needs a lot more work, particularly on habitat/distribution and ecology (see the WikiProject TreeOfLife 'template' at Ragwort).

I don't think the statement about the evolution of the plant is contentious. There's a vast tract on evolution in the carnivorous plant article that has never attracted the attentions of the ID crowd. The day that the word 'evolved' becomes construed as POV by the Wikipedia community, is the day I leave.

polypompholyx 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture

This is a plea for authors to think twice about adding anything else to the pop-culture section. It's already over-long and rambling: does anyone really want to know that something vaguely resembling a VFT had a bit-part in an episode of an obscure cartoon in 1989? There are much more important and encyclopaedic things that could be added, such as more detail of the plant's ecology and conservation status, etc. I am mightily tempted to leave the reference to Audrey in, and shunt the rest of it off to List of cameo appearances by Venus flytraps in cartoons or similar… polypompholyx 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that items in this section should make extensive use of venus flytraps (i.e. main characters such as in LSoH, primary supporting characters, main obstacles or guest characters for a given episode, and so on, rather than just one-time appearances as minor obstacles in single episodes, etc), I also think that specifically including LSoH and ignoring other media would be an expression of POV, i.e. stating between the lines that LSoH, either by virtue of being a major Hollywood motion picture or an American production or whatnot, was somehow more important than other appearances and thus worthy of mention when others were not.

I guess what I'm saying is tread carefully, here.67.169.63.116 07:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So, there used to be a pop culture section. What's happened to it? DanielZazula (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The parts that weren't long, long, long trivial trivia lists of cartoon carnivorous plants were very poorly written, so the whole section was deemed unnecessary and then deleted.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Family Dionaeceae

I have some images I took of my VFT closing in on a housefly. If these are useful, I would be glad to post them here with appropriate guidance on the formating, etc. You can see the images here: http://photobucket.com/albums/f326/ebeyonder/

Some nonsense some guy told me down the pub?

I was chatting to a friend who said there is a theory that the Venus Flytrap, being monotypic and thus unrelated to any other plant originated from an extraterrestial source. That the plant was discovered in and around a large meteorite crater. Does this theory exist?→

Although the genus Dionaea is monotypic, there are other genera in the family. In other words, there are other plants that are relatively closely related, such as the sundews ''Drosera'' and Waterwheel plants ''Aldrovanda''. That being said, there has been some speculation that past meteors in the Carolinas were the source of the radiation that allowed the Venus Flytrap to mutate and evolve from its ancestors. I don't know if this hypothesis is anything beyond speculation, though. Either way, the plant is not thought to be extraterrestrial. Hope that helps! --NoahElhardt 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean it's not from Venus? ;) -Will Beback 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read this exact same thing. Apparantly they grow in only one area naturally (as wiki shows). This is a 100 or so mile region surrounding a meteor crater...creepy eh?!

Double-click trigger hairs...

"The trigger hairs must be touched twice in quick succession (which prevents non-prey stimuli such as raindrops from triggering the trap)..."

Hmm, might all venus flytraps potentially have to pay royalties to Microsoft for using the Double-click technology? *snicker*

Heh, if the plants had any money, Microsoft might have a patent infringment lawsuit coming their way. I think the plants developed the technology first! --NoahElhardt 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a form of summation, for the Ca²⁺ to cause the action potential the depolarisation due to some Ca²⁺ must reach a threshold level. Triggering a hair causes Ca²⁺ to "leak" in, but you must do it several times in a short enough time that the Ca²⁺ wont be pumped back out again for it to reach the threshold and cause a action potential. Triggering the same hair several times would be like temporal summation triggering another hair would be spacial summation, but these usually apply to neurons and I assume each hair acts as a neuron, I'll do some research into the biology of the trap before adding the above. Wolfmankurd 14:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fire

Please add a mention of the fact that Dionaea muscipula is fire-tolerant and fire-dependent. It depends on fire to control larger plants that would otherwise outcompete it. Carlaclaws 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very obvious question: Do you have any sources for this claim?

Sorry, thought I posted these:

"The growth form of Dionaea as a rosette with leaves close to the ground makes this plant less competitive against grasses and shrubs. Following fire, Dionaea may be highly abundant for 3–5 years until shrubs and monocotyledonous plants overtop the small rosette plants. Thus this species is restricted to early successional stages after fire (Roberts and Oosting, 1958)"-Quantification of insect nitrogen utilization by the venus fly trap Dionaea muscipula catching prey with highly variable isotope signatures, W. Schulze, E.D. Schulze, I. Schulze, and R. Oren, Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 52, No. 358, pp. 1041-1049, May 1, 2001 © 2001 Oxford University Press (available online at [[3]]

Also:

"The ecosystem that supports Venus flytraps experiences frequent fires that clear out competing plants and volatilize nitrogen in the soil. Hence, Venus flytraps have a corner on the nitrogen market immediately following fire, when they obtain three quarters of their nitrogen supply from insect prey. If fire does not reoccur within 10 years, however, competition with other plants restricts the Venus flytrap’s access to light and insects, and populations begin to decline."-Lissa Leege, Asst. Professor of Biology, Georgia Southern University, Scientific American, December 2002. Carlaclaws 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Live Journal

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A WEB DIRECTORY

I deleted the link to the "Venus Fly Trap Photo Blog" It's a Live Journal that is rarely updated. The blog is more about the author's personal problems (and consequent apologizing for sporadic/shitty updates) than it is about the plants, the horticulture. Also, "photo blog" is laughable. 99% of the photos in this blog are so tiny, they are utterly useless (I'm talking 100x100 LJ icon size here!).

"Huge, colorful gallery" ????? LMAO , WHERE? There's nothing there, and even if there were, it's nothing that can't be found with a google search.

Did anyone actually READ this blog before submitting it to wikipedia? Outrageous.

I can't imagine how this crappy little LiveJournal made it into the external links for an encyclopedia article (maybe the author being a cute asian girl has something to do with it, eh?) but this is a real joke. I removed the link. I sincerely doubt anyone can provide a good argument as to why this crappy link should be included in the article. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this Live Journal link CANNOT be taken seriously as a reference or useful external link. It's utterly useless.

While I partially agree with the sentiment (ie: it's not an appropriate link re: WP:EL) - it's not really appropriate to discuss it in the fashion you have. I'd respectfully suggest that reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV may be beneficial. MidgleyDJ 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think these traps are sexy because thay trap flys as so do men have sex with Wemen, come on babY!!!

Investigation Calcium action potential

I don't know if anyones interested but to test the calcium action potential thing I poked a trap in the rib away from the visible trigger hairs at the edge, then dipped the needle in "snail strong" Which contains Ca²⁺ ions, both times just about scratching the surface and on the second one it partially closed. Then to test it further I put a drop of snail strong on another trap and scratched the mid rib again resulting in closure this time faster than normal. Is this because of the poking or the calcium? Wolfmankurd 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Poking the midrib shouldn't trigger the trap unless you are also touching the trigger hairs. You could test this by poking the midrib again, this time without the Calcium, to check for that variable. Interesting experiment! Keep in mind, however, that this talk page is meant to discuss the article itself rather than its subject matter. For discussion with other folks out there interested in venus fly traps, try www.terraforums.com or www.cpukforums.com. --NoahElhardt 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks :) Wolfmankurd 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I note the comments above under "Rewrite" and I do feel the article needs some information on how this plant evolved and from what. Or if proof exists that "God" created it one day, then that can go in too :0) BTW, I bought one to help solve a temporary fly problem here (no, not with my trousers) and after only a few days it has five ex-flies in its bellies. EdX20 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. It's hard to imagine what kind of advantage a half-evolved flytrap would have. Did this evolve out of another carnivorous plant, or from scratch? It seems like it would already need the ability to produce digestive enzymes for the trap to provide any kind of evolutionary advantage. Any information on this topic? 72.75.27.194 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the "half evolved flytrap", perhaps this would explain a little? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Protocarnivorous_plant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.108.223 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02935.x/abstract -- This is a paper dealing with Venus Flytrap evolution. Just as a reference when this article is unprotected. MosheZadka (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

References

A new website about Dionaea has been made ... flytrapgrowing.info. There are comments about it here and here.

Conveniently it has short articles which I have used as appropriate references on this page where there were none before. There's probably some other useful articles on there which could be added as references to the Wiki page too.

Woops, I forgot to log in last time!Womblina 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC) It also seems that my addition of references wasn't appreciated :( Apparently they aren't 'reliable'. But I assumed that a slightly unreliable reference was better than no reference at all. Anyone with the same opinion as me? Or am I on my own :(Womblina 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

dione

I am sorry but I am quite sure that the name Dionea doesn't come from Diana but from the name of the mother of Aphrodite/Venus, Dione. It is also true that these two names have the same etymology. To be clearer, Aphrodite and Dione could be synonymous --90.28.170.58 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Venus flytrap

how long does the venus flytrap live for???? i need to know!

Wikipedia is not here to answer questions, but the reference desk is. WLU (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i've never seen 1 older than 4 yrs

Etymology

Why is there no section on the etymology of "Venus flytrap"? From the above discussions, it appears there are differing theories. This would be an interesting and relevant section. 140.142.199.76 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

rewrite

In the habitat section, I removed the statement that said the Venus fly trap was the state flower of South Carolina. This is incorrect, the state flower of SC is the yellow Jessamine.Pprohas (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen ions vs protons

"Hydrogen ion is recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry as a general term for all ions of hydrogen and its isotopes" - see Hydrogen ion. A Google search reveals that considerably more botanical articles use ions and ion flux in preference to protons. H⁺ denotes the provenance of the ion as being from Hydrogen, whereas proton is a sort of Deus ex machina with no hint as to where it originated. Rotational (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Since your edit clarified which hydrogen ion it is, I'm fine with this edit. Just to be clear, though, in the realm of pH research, it is understood that "proton" = ¹H⁺, since there is no other source of protons. For example, we commonly call some ATPases proton pumps, not "hydrogen ion pumps". --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime

Does anyone actually have a confirmed estimated lifetime that can be added to the wiki? My own VFT has been alive for over two years, flowered twice and yet to go through a 'winter dormancy period' since I purchased it which is apparently quite impressive. I doubt I can use it as a reference though... --78.149.139.71 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter D'Amato's book, The Savage Garden, notes that they take 4-5 years to reach maturity from seed and can live for 20 to 30 years. This is also what I've heard from other professionals in the field. I'll add that into the article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Venus Flytraps that glow in the dark?

Are there any Venus Flytraps whose inner leaves glow in the dark? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No. And as far as I know, no one's reported if they fluoresce under UV light, but I don't suspect they would. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did show strong patterning under UV, due to UV pigments (reflective rather than fluorescent). This is so common in flowers that it would be interesting, but unsurprising, to find it here too. What do flytraps eat in the wild? Do those food insects feed by sight (e.g. flowers) or by small (e.g. carrion or blood)? This warrants research - it would be a good addition to the article, either way (or maybe I've just been reading too many comparative evolutionary anatomy books this week). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chlorophyll fluoresces red under UV, but it's nothing dramatic. And that of course isn't unique to Dionaea. It's best observed under the microscope. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wars

I wish someone with edit rights would fix the bit about their conservation being challenged by "full scale wars." Last was in the Carolinas was the Civil war, and I'm pretty sure there's no citations about how flytraps fared during it. 96.11.217.244 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Actually, I believe you were misreading that bit, which I agree was poorly worded and irrelevant. It was speaking about ex-situ conservation and used the example of social instability (like wars) as a factor for the long-term survival of the species. I don't think the passage was directly referring to wars in the Carolinas or specifically in reference to this species, which is why it's best that you removed it. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why isn't this page titled according to the Latin? I haven't been on here in a while, but my imperfect recollection tells me the rule for plants on Wikipedia was that they should be titled by their Latin name. Dionaea isn't really a huge economic crop like cassava, for instance.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tomekeeper, 10 June 2011

A sentence under the heading "Evolution" currently reads, "Their carnivorous traps were evolutionarily selected for to allow these organisms to survive their harsh environments." It should be reworded at "for to" by whomever can do so, presumably simply omitting the "for". Tomekeeper (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Prey

The section on "Prey Selectivity" is really inaccurate - the source reference has been misread or misunderstood. Will someone correct this? e.g. carnivorous plants do NOT select their prey - they trap and / or digest whatever triggers their specific capture and digestion mechanisms. Trapping structures have evolved to be particularly suited to certain sizes of prey found in their specific habitats, but the prey types (species) can be incredibly varied. So, Venus fly traps have evolved a mechanism which favours prey of certain sizes, but the optimum prey size depends entirely on the size of the specific trap. Also, its a bit oxymoronic to state that they select "specific" prey types, and then list their prey as actually being very broad (grasshoppers, beetles, spiders, the very unspecific category "flying insects", and ants). Note also that the source gives these categories as totalling just 83% of Dionea prey items. That leaves 17%, which can inlude any creature that blunders onto a trap surface - which must include any of the molluscs, myriapods, annelids, crustaceans, flatowrms, and even small amphibians and reptiles that share Dionea's habitat. If I can be given edit access I will be happy correct this section to better reflect the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.165.97 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

animated gif made faster

It's just a very small adjustment in the File:Dionaea_muscipula_growth_time-lapse
I made it go faster File:Dionaea_muscipula_growth_time-lapse_faster.gif

I can not change it because the page is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naberacka (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

stochiastic

the article says stochiastic reasons - this is not easy to understand. oerhaps a link to stochiastic processes could be provided OR if more appropriate the relevant evolution / stochiastic article in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.252.228 (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most recent common ancestor"

This article says the flytrap and another plant do in fact share a most recent common ancestor.

...that doesn't mean anything. Any two life forms have a most recent common ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.194.67 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the section about the flytrap and Aldrovanda?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Xandercom (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Http://s2.postimg.org/4351887mh/venus.jpg

Venus Fly Trap unusually displaying a smaller trap within the larger trap

As a keen horticulturist with particular interest in Dionaea muscipula (venus fly trap) since childhood I have been fortunate enough to whiteness a natural mutation in a crop I own in which a second smaller trap has formed within a larger trap, essentially a mouth with another mouth inside it. It is a most interesting first hand experience of natural selection through random mutation and appropriate to the "evolution" section of this article. I can find no other instances of this occurrence in on-line offline documentation, and as such I would like for it to be documented in this article for reference in any future or past instances. My name is Xander David-Hugh of Brighton, UK. I'm unfamiliar with the correct format for such an entry into this article, and would be grateful for a more senior site contributor to appropriately format this addendum to the evolution section if at all possible. I've also uploaded and linked an image. Kindest regards, and many thanks in advance of your help in assisting my contribution

Xander D Hugh

Hi, (I've taken the liberty of slightly editing your text above). There is a practical limit to the number of images that can be used on a wikipedia page, particularly because people want to be able to view it on small devices such as mobile phones, so the place for galleries of images is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/ (See also WP:NOTGALLERY.) On this page there is a link near the bottom like this:

and if you click on that, and then go to the bottom of that page and click on the category Dionaea muscipula, you'll get to even more images, a multitude of them. Can you upload your image to Commons? If you need help doing that, please ask at my talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

There is a lot of lack of information in The classifications of Venus Fly Trap. If you could kindly put the Phyla Of The Venus Fly traps as "Tracheophyta" The class as "Magnoliopsida" and the subclass as "Dilleniidae"

So the Format is like this Kingdom: Plantae Phyla: Tracheophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Subclass: Dilleniidae Order: Nepenthales Family: Droseraceae Salisb Genus: Dionaea Species: muscipula Scientific name: Dionaea Muscipula

I really hope you can approve the changes im suggesting

Thank you for whom it may concern

Jayce03 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the classification you suggest is extremely outdated. We use the APG III system of classification. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

Hi. I completely respect your decision of denying my request. But my point here is students do not actually need the new kind of taxonomy/classification. Mostly the professors and the teachers prefer the students to find the older kind of taxonomy. And I could tell its a pain if sometimes the information is not found at the Wikipedia or the information is incomplete. I'm not expecting you to make the changes. But I'm just saying the needs of the majority. Thank you.

For whom it may concern.

Jayce03 (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Students most certainly do need exposure to the new classification. The Cronquist system is seriously out of date; most of the higher taxa he proposed are now known to be polyphyletic or paraphyletic because we have access to molecular data. Clinging to an outdated system isn't wise. Other databases and websites are transitioning to APG III, as well. The Cronquist system will fade away, much like the Takhtajan system has. Our decision to update our classification in the taxobox was made by consensus and, last time I checked, nearly all of our articles are presented this way. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Three Suggestions to Evolution Section. 29 September 2014

It can be added to the Evolution section that there are six origins of carnivory itself among the different groups of angiosperms, and that carnivory and stereotyped trap forms have arisen independently among different lineages of angiosperms. Also, it was found that flypaper traps share close common ancestry with all other trap forms.

Also, this section... "The model proposes that plant carnivory by snap-trap evolved from the flypaper traps driven by increasing prey size. Bigger prey provides higher nutritional value, but large insects can easily escape the sticky mucilage of flypaper traps; the evolution of snap-traps would prevent escape and kleptoparasitism (theft of prey captured by the plant before it can derive benefit from it), and would also permit a more complete digestion.[20][21]" is not specifically correct as the experiment done by John Hutchens and James Luken found that there is no effect of trap size in relation to prey capture success and that the prey capture is opportunistic rather than selective. Therefore, the model that larger prey means more nutrition and thus larger traps would evolve, would not be correct in this evolutionary aspect.

Thirdly, it can be added that the nerve-like sensory system of the Venus Fly-trap evolved about 135 million years ago in the Cretaceous period. Also, the Venus Fly-trap has an active steel trap, like that of "Aldrovandra", the water wheel plant. Saridakis.5 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Three Suggestions to this page. 30 September 2014

Three ways this page could be improved are to talk about how the organism’s trap attracts and lures prey into its trap, to talk about and expand on how the plant developed a carnivorous trap in the first place, and to talk about what nutrients exactly the plant gains from digesting insects specifically that it could not acquire by other means Houchens.9 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Willie Houchens

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

Please include in the evolution section of the article how the Venus flytrap attracts its prey to its carnivorous leaves. The following article I believe addresses this topic.

Jurgens, A.; El-Sayed, A.M.; and Suckling, D.M. “Do carnivorous plants use volatiles for attracting prey insects?” Functional Ecology. Published 18, Sept 2009. Accessed 14, Sept. 2014. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01626.x/full Houchens.9 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Willie Houchens Houchens.9 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure if the reference provided is reliable. Nevertheless, please discuss and gain consensus for this alteration. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Leo, I will do what I can to get on that Houchens.9 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Willie Houchens

Edits 11/14/14

It can be added to the proposed evolutionary history: Due to recent research on the protein composition and DNA sequences, the Venus Fly Trap has been found to have proteins that are categorized as pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the plant's digestive system has evolved from defense-related processes. During the evolution of carnivory in plants, there was likely a shift from a pathogen related response to a prey related response, and thus a shift from the hydrolysis and destruction of the pathogen to the hydrolysis and digestion of the prey. It can be seen that through evolutionary time, the plants shifted from defending against insects to preying on them in order to better benefit the plant. Receiving nutrients from the insects instead of expelling energy solely to defend against them can be seen as a beneficial and thus a positive selection property of carnivory. Overall, through the use of deep sequencing of the transcriptome and proteomic analyses, unique hydrolytic enzymes were found, along with a high proportion of pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the capability of carnivorous plants to digest prey evolved from a less complex plant defense system.

It can also be added to the evolution section that there is an opposing view of the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap. There is evidence that disagrees with the evolution of a larger trap length due solely to higher nutritional value from larger prey. It had been found that prey capture is opportunistic rather than selective and that there is no effect on trap size to prey capture success. The evolution of trap size can be explained more simply that traps collect prey, whether large or small and since there are varying types of prey, larger ones are not necessarily more nutritious. Saridakis.5 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Possible Edit

In the carnivory section, something like following could be inserted: In order for these traps to work, prey must actually come to them, a study in 2009 focused on how exactly carnivorous plants attract prey to its trap. This study concluded that it is possible that most carnivorous plants make use of a chemical substance in order to attract its prey. It also stated in the results of the study that the Venus flytrap emits a scent from its trap, even though it is relatively weak, in order to attract nectar-seeking insects from a close distance to feed on.

Jurgens, A.; El-Sayed, A.M.; and Suckling, D.M. 2009. Do carnivorous plants use volatiles for attracting prey insects? Functional Ecology, Volume 23, Issue 5. Accessed 14, Sept. 2014.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01626.x/full

Houchens.9 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Willie Houchens

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Theft of naturally growing Venus Flytraps is now a felony offense in certain North Carolina counties. See. User28412 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) User28412 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Minor Error

Hello -

I simply want to address a minor error in the text. Under the "Conservation" section, there is a sentence that reads, "As of December 1st. 2014, the theft of..." This should actually read, "As of December 1, 2014, the theft of..."

I apologize if I'm using the incorrect outlet for this. I am new to Wikipedia and do not know to whom or how to address this.

Thanks!

Linkspants (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Linkspants

Hello Linkspants! This was the perfect place to make that request, and I changed the date format for you (though I used 1 December 2014 because that seems to be more standard on Wikipedia). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Venus flytrap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071202201809/http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/dumais/Publications/Nature2005.pdf to http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/dumais/Publications/Nature2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217021417/http://www.flytrapcare.com:80/venus-fly-trap-background-information.html?start=3 to http://www.flytrapcare.com/venus-fly-trap-background-information.html?start=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

The timelapse video caption has a typo. "caching" should be "catching".

Kdelok (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016

Flowering venus flytrap showing a long flower stem preventing insect catching by leaves

Venus flytrap flower rosette with ruler

• Please consider adding this picture to the page as, unlike the botanical illustration, it shows the length of the flower stem.
• Also, you may consider adding a picture of an inflorescence with a ruler. Thank you.--Victoria (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've found a suitable reference to support a statement along the lines of "The venus flytrap flower stems are proportionately long, preventing pollinating insects from being trapped ..." which could then be illustrated appropriately with your first suggested image. But I'm unsure of the best place to add this new information, and exactly what wording to use. Where in the article would be acceptable, and what words? fredgandt 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be added in the Description section, after the "(wide petioles in low light intensity versus narrow in brighter light)". Something along the lines:

During the sexual reproduction, the plant produces white flowers at the end of one, disproportionately long stem, which prevents pollinating insects from being trapped.--Victoria (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added this information into the article in the "description" section, and placed the image in the gallery below. Thanks for your suggestion! SarrCat ∑;3 01:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition. The source cited is not a reliable source. While it is hosted at an academic webpage, it seems to be a class project and contains numerous errors. Also, there's been nothing published in the literature to suggest that there's an evolutionary advantage to having taller inflorescences such that it prevents the trapping of pollinators. It's one of those things that sounds logical but when studied in Drosera species, there's no evidence to support a spatial separation as a solution for the pollinator-prey conflict. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough... I thought i read it published in a book on carnivorous plants somewhere, but it could just be one of those bits of folk knowledge that keeps going around. More research is needed, I guess? Or perhaps there is already a reliable source out there. If I find one, I'll be sure and bring it up again here on the talk page. SarrCat ∑;3 20:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly an area open for more study. Most books on carnivorous plants I've seen are careful in writing about spatial separation as a possible solution, or one of many hypotheses. In the primary literature, there's this recent article on three species of Drosera. The same authors had a 2012 study and neither presents data or concludes that spatial separation is the mechanism by which the pollinator-prey conflict is resolved. Certainly an interesting subject and probably should have it's own section in the carnivorous plant article especially with regard to the kinds of separation (temporal, spatial, behavioral). Rkitko ^(talk) 04:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Despite you being sceptical about the explanation, why revert the picture?--Victoria (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Venus flytrap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• All right, here's my review:
• Article is generally well-written. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Verifiability is the main issue: There's a citation needed tag in the description section, and most of the cultivation section has no citation. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Broad coverage: Everything looks good here; not too in depth, nothing lacking. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Images are all OK on copyrights. One minor thing though (tell me if this is not a standard practice): I think it could be improved if the distribution map were more focused on the region where the flytrap actually lives. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - seems good to me Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No stability issues detected. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• One more comment; on the "Evolution" section, you say "Researchers have proposed". It's kind of ambiguous who these researchers are or if there are any alternative hypotheses for Dionaea evolution. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• The lead mostly talks about the trapping mechanism, briefly mentioning distribution and classification. It should also summarize the rest of the article, like description, cultivation, evolution, or conservation. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• That concludes my review. Nomination put on hold for 7 days. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) Seems like a reasonable review to me. One thing specifically stood out to me, you mentioned that the "cultivation" section is unreferenced. I have a copy of The Savage Garden: Cultivating Carnivorous Plants a book on, well, cultivating carnivorous plants. It is already cited in the "description" section as a source for the last sentence, "When grown from seed, plants take around four to five years to reach maturity and will live for 20 to 30 years if cultivated in the right conditions." First of all do you think that piece of information would fit better in the "cultivation" section, or should it be left where it is? Second, seeing as I have a copy of that book, I could even cite specific pages to back up individual statements in the "cultivation" section. How does that sound? SarrCat ∑;3 22:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Yes, I think that sounds like a good source and that piece of information would fit better in the cultivation section. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs)Alright then, I'll make these edits and add citations for the pages in the book where the information can be found. Nw I gotta go find the thing, it's on my bookshelf somewhere... Anyways, is there a specific way that is preferred for citing the same book, but different pages, without having a bunch of citations that are basically identical, except for the page number? I know how to cite the whole work multiple times, just use named references, but I was wondering about citing it multiple times with a different page number in each citation.SarrCat ∑;3 22:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Well, I've never done that before. I'd go to Help:References and page numbers to see how to do it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) I'll have to check that out. The citation to the book is currently for the whole work, and at the end of the cultivation section, where I moved it, along with that other bit of information about the plants lifespan. Anyways, you also mentioned the evolution section in your review, right?. Coincidentally, this morning, while reading the comments in a blog I follow, I came across a link to a blog post about a recently published article on the flytrap's evolution (Full text here). The blog post also linked to this article, which I think might be the same thing more or less. I cant view it though as I don't have a subscription. Anyways, I was thinking these might be great sources of additional information that could be added to the article's evolution section, if what is contained in them isn't already present. SarrCat ∑;3 11:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Yep, those look like excellent sources for more info. Send me an email and I can get you a pdf of that Science Magazine article if you want. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) OK, I sent you the pdf. Though, actually reading the article, all it does is summarizes the open access on from Genome Research, so you'll probably be fine just using that one. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• The seven-day hold is up, but some of my concerns have not been addressed. Specifically, there is still a citation need tag in the description section, and the lead still does not summarize the whole article. I'm going to leave the review open for another week for these to be addressed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• No action for the second week. I will close the nomination as no-pass. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 18:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Prey selectivity?

Having grown flytraps for decades, I was surprised to learn that they eat mostly ground insects. I was even more surprised to find that they select their food. In checking the source (#10) I could find none of these claims. On page 32 it says exactly the opposite, in that the plants do not select their prey. The percentages of various insects they eat were apparently surmised, as the source only describes a sample of 14 traps inspected by Darwin, which is hardly enough to start drawing such conclusions from. The source mostly focuses on the size of the traps, which are generally twice as long as its common food source.

That seems consistent with my own observations. In my local area, the most common food source is yellow jackets, which are wasps roughly 1/2 to 3/4 inch long. Once the plant has matured a few years, the traps are roughly 1 to 2 inches long. They seem to love yellow jackets, by which I mean the things put up such a struggle that the trap will stay closed for a month. I've never seen one catch an ant, beetle or spider, just flies, mosquitos and bees. (I did have one bright-green and red spider hide on a plant, wait for it to catch a fly, and then snatch it out of the trap before it sealed up.)

Can someone point to a source which confirms the statements and numbers in the article. If not, then I think it should be changed to reflect what the source actually says. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish WP:Original Research--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my point exactly. The cited source gives no percentages and clearly says they do not select their prey. My question is, where did the info come from, because I would like to verify it. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly relevant. It seems to be freely available, but if for some reason it is not accessible where you are, let me know on my talk page. It is an interesting statement that the idea that they select their prey seems to be the result of Panglossian thinking. I found that, by the way, by searching scholar.google.com with keywords "Dionaea prey selectivity" (no quotes). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was only able to access the abstract, not the entire study. That abstract pretty much agrees with the source in the article, located here: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/1/19.full.pdf+html. (See page 32 for the relevant discussion.) This source is great and has a lot of wonderful info in it. I like sources with numbers, and I wanted to see if the available diet in their natural habitat greatly differed than the diet available here in Alaska, so I went to look it up, but I couldn't find any of the info from our article in the source.

Our article says, "Most carnivorous plants selectively feed on specific prey. This selection is due to the available prey and the type of trap used by the organism. With the Venus flytrap, prey is limited to beetles, spiders and other crawling arthropods. In fact, the Dionaea diet is 33% ants, 30% spiders, 10% beetles, and 10% grasshoppers, with fewer than 5% flying insects." To accurately reflect what the source says, our article should say: "Most carnivorous plants are not selective but opportunistically prey on whatever enters their traps. Charles Darwin studied fourteen traps containing insects. Of the fourteen, 33% ants, 30% spiders, 10% beetles, and 10% grasshoppers, with fewer than 5% flying insects." That would be more in line with the source (although I have not yet actually done the math to see if the percentages are correct). Zaereth (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Sminthopsis sent me a copy of the study, and it was in complete agreement with the source in the article. It also had some real percentages. (Thanks Sminthopsis.) There is also this, https://www.coastal.edu/media/administration/honorsprogram/pdf/Humenik_Biology.pdf , which says the same. Flytraps are opportunistic and do not select their prey based on size. Small insects were captured just as often, and in many cases more than large prey. Small prey that were large enough to trip the trap were not able to escape through the cilia at the opening, but the difference was mainly because large prey was either too large to be captured or too strong for the trap and were able to escape. All scientific evidence suggests that the traps are not selective in the prey, but rather adapted to lure and capture the common prey in their natural habitat, which indeed does consist of mostly ants and spiders.

Other studies indicate the plant has evolved to attract insects through both color and odor, from the red surfaces to the emission of over 60 volatile organic compounds associated with the smell of ripe or rotten fruits. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904726/ .) This behavior is most likely an adaptation to its environment, including available resources such as prey, rather than a method of selection.

That's not to say that plants can't actively select prey. This action is common among plants like vines, seeking out other plants to grow on. Even strawberries will send out stems with leaves attached, which probes the ground. If it finds a clover, it will plant roots right on top of it and strangle the clover. However, neither active nor passive selection is observed in carnivorous plants. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): E3B-DM. Peer reviewers: Cgb2137.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kay Kang 1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)