Talk:Plant intelligence

All plants or some plants

I've changed "that some plants are able to" > "plants are able to". This is because I think it is more inaccurate to say "some plants" as this suggests that some plants have a special ability to be intelligent, like saying an oak is more intelligent than a sycamore for example. The sources suggest that if plant intelligence is real, that all plants are able to solve problems. In the particular case of communication, methyl jasmonate is active in all plants. Smartse (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm concerned about overgeneralisation. If a study demonstrates problem solving in a particular species, it's quite a leap to say that problem solving exists in all plants and it's not for us make that generalisation as wikipedia editors. To make that claim there'd need to be a reference to say that there is communication in all plants, and that there is problem solving in all plants. Of course if we have those references that'd be ideal. However, I think we should be cautious and not say things are true until there is evidence to support the claim. I hope I've explained myself clearly enough, but let me know if I'm missing something. pgr94 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be inappropriate to say all plants, but as I tried to explain above it's also inaccurate to say some species as this implies that it is special ability that only some plants have. The first reference clearly has a section titled "Plant intelligence starts with cell molecular networks" - this is a fundamental trait, not specific to some plants. Plant intelligence is essentially phenotypic plasticity which is a feature of all plants and not only some. I also agree that we should be cautious but think that rather than there being a lack of evidence, it depends more on what is considered intelligence (and as we know it's almost impossible to create a satisfactory definition). Smartse (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

plants listening to music

Under 'hear': "Some plants grow healthier while listening to music.[26] It is also found that plants show different reactions to different kinds of music. For example, plants show negative trophism towards rock and dischordant music while showing positive trophism towards classical, soft and melodious music.[citation needed]" Is there any reliable research on this? Reference 26 does not have have anything to do with music. So unless there is a source, these lines can be removed. Snuitkever (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty unlikely to me, so I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Section Plant Perceptions

The section plant perceptions is just a repeat of the article on plant perceptions. A redirect from this article to the other is all that is required. (The deletions weren't unexplained either, it was in my comment when I performed the change). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Being bold is good, but if you meet resistance you should follow WP:MERGE.

I'd agree that there is some overlap but I see no harm in this minor duplication.

• Briefly summarising plant capabilities is useful in the context of plant intellience.
• There are links to the main articles such as thigmotropism and equilibrioception.
• The relationship between plant intelligence and plant perception is still unclear, and until that relationship is made clear it's not for us as editors to decide.

pgr94 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the content in that section was a copy paste and is a duplicate. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)