I am lost in thinking about monocots vs. dicots, gymnosperms vs. angiosperms, and such....can someone help me in plant evolution and the plant taxonomy
136449
You may want to check out a great book called "The Variety of Life," by Collen Trudge.  He gives a great overview of the evolution and relationship of plants (as well as all other life).\n\nThere is so much to go over when you are asking about all plants as you are (that's why the first answer probably seems a little confusing).  You may also feel free to email me with questions - the evolution of plants is a great interest of mine (I only have a Bachelors degree in Botany, but I'm sure I can help).\n\nThe plant kingdom is divided into two sub-kingdoms (all these groupings and divisions should reflect their evolutionary lineage) trachaeophytes (most plants that you think of) and bryophytes (mosses, liverworts and hornworts).\n\nThe tracheophytes are then divided into about 21 "phylums" (usually called "divisions" in botany) some living, some extinct.\n\nThe largest division is the angiosperms (flowering plants), which are then divided into (mostly) monocots and dicots.\n\nGymnosperms is kind of a false grouping.  It includes divisions such as conifers, ginkos, cycads, gnetophytes, and other extinct divisions.  Really, they are no more closely related to one-another than they are to flowering plants.\n\nIf you have further questions, add details to your question, I will check back.  Or just write to me.
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
104951
Resources on the species of marijuana\n\nHope this helps.
134242
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
76079
is it........\n\n             KINGDOM\n             PHYLUM\n             CLASS\n             ORDER\n             FAMILY\n             GENUS\n             SPECIES\nis that what you are looking for.........
545990
Too little information.\n\nWhere did you get it (ie. what state or contry)?\nHow many petals do the flowers have?\nHow many stamens?\n\nA picture of the actual flower would help, since most plant classification is based on flower structure.
260697
I don't like your teacher.  I think he/she is looking for B. genes, but then he/she should not have put chromosomes as an alternative choice.  Mendel's theory of independent assortment was only true because the genes he studied were on separate chromosomes.  It could be argued that what he was actually studying was chromosomal inheritance.
151742
you basically want to say which species evolved first.\n\nTry this website...it might give you some ideas\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
455055
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
135688
http://www.sacsplash.org/mather/illustrations.htm\nhttp://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/webb/BOT410/Angiosperm/CompositeFlower.htm\nhttp://www.backyardnature.net/fl_comps.htm
289422
Botany is the scientific study of plantlife.  Botany covers the study of the structure, growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, ecology, and evolution of plants.\n\n\n\nI know quite a bit, I just completed that class at this semester at the college i go too.
489384
Primary growth as it applies to the stem of a plant is simply the elongation of the stem.  Both monocots and dicots display primary growth as both plants elongate regularly throughout their life cycle (typically).  Secondary growth is the thickening of the stem.  Monocots are broadly said to have no secondary growth.  Many dicots display extensive secondary growth and dicots are broadly said to display secondary growth commonly.\n\nThe reason for the lack of secondary growth in monocots is due to the scattered arrangement of xylem and phloem in the stem.  The thickening of the stem would cause the xylem and phloem to break in the stem and be non-continuous due to the uneven division of cells in the stem.  Whereas dicots have secondary growth as their xylem and phloem are arranged in a circular fashion which permits thickening of the stem inside of the circular bundle of vascular tissue without causing the vascular tissue to break.\nBreaking the vascular tissue of a plant would stop fluid and nutrient transport in Angiospems (which are flowering plants that include all the monocots and dicots) which would kill the plant.
54659
On a typical dicot stem, look for the vascular bundles to be situated around the outter region of the stem.\nThe monocot's vascular bundles will be distributed throughout...\n\nHere, check out this link. This confused me a little too when I was in Botany.\n\nGood Luck
425280
flowering plants! we just learned this in my biology 110 class at penn state! oh, my professor would be so  proud :)
40453
Your Ph.D guide will be able to help you out. I am sure you will be able to understand the botanical terminology in the following text.\nThere are hundreds of species of Eucalyptus growing world wide mostly located in xeric conditions. The gross anatomical features include the following:\n      1) Cuticularised epidermis, with some times sunken stomata. Multiple epidermis can also be found in some cases.\n      2) Well developed palisade with plenty of chloroplasts.\n      3) Well developed mechanical tissue.\n      4) Presence of oil glands.\nAll these features are ecological adaptations to the dry habitat. \nYour university will be in position to tell you about the previous work done on the subject. A good library will give you the books. Go for ‘Ecological anatomy of dicotyledonous plants‘ or ‘Anatomy of Dicotyledonous Plants‘.
648404
Taxonomy (the study of the classification of living things) and Systematics are ways of organizing life on earth so that it is easier to study and learn and take care of, after we have found it.  It let's us keep track of what organisms are from past, present so that we are better able to keep track of things for the future, esp as biological degradation continues on the planet.  If we had not kept a system such of this amongst the worlds' scientists, we would not know the current threats to the species diversity of life on the earth, which organisms are endangered or threatened, which are extinct, becoming extinct, etc.  Its a great way of organizing for our learning them too.  \n\nTaxonomy has many categories or taxa, each one a subset of the group above it that is more conclusive:\n\nLets do humans, but I won't include ALL taxa...these taxa are usually what are studied in a basic bio class:\n\nDomain:Eukaria\n   Kingdom: animal\n      Phylum: chordate\n         sub-phylum: vertebrate\n            Class: Mammal\n               order: primate\n                  family: Hominidae\n                     genus: Homo\n                        species: sapiens\n\nIf we also did the domestic cat, domesticated dog, rhesus monkey,etc,would be able to easily see how close and how different each species is in each taxonomic category or taxon.  This is also a helpful tool to see what scientists call evolution.  It is obvious that nature, like a giant computer, has an orderly order of increasing complexity from most simple to most complex of organisms when one studies all of nature. \n\nHere's another analogy to help us appreciate "organization":\n\nIf Staples was not organized as it is and we went in to ask for a tiny paperclip, we would never be able to find it in that huge messy, disorganized place.  In fact, imagine how much work it would take to find a purple paper clip if a bomb went off in Staples and all the office supplies were all mixed in one big pile.  By sorting and organizing the big complexity of "office supplies" we will then be able to find a purple paperclip in the paperclip section, we'd understand paperclip diversity more and store what we are looking for better when we take our supplies home to our own office, and MAYBE take better care of them.  \n\nOriginally taxonomy was done very VISUALLY, by how close-different stuff looked macroscopically, but as our technology improved we needed to be able to see-know more-closer relationships using many different disciplines besides gross form, inc microscopes where we could begin to compare and contrast cells, tissues and even organelles of various organisms.  Fossil records including bone collections helped organize things a lot too.  So did study of the various embryological stages.  Now with the genetics-genomics (genomes) of many organisms becoming known, it is easy to see where we may have made some mistakes in taxonomy using just visual methods to classify stuff.  By comparing the biochemistry inc genomes of many organisms we will be able to know even more intricately, how close or how far apart these organisms are from each other in their anatomy, physiology, genetics and evolution. By knowing how close some endangered organisms are, we may be able to prevent their demise or extinction.  For example, embryos of a near extinct zebra could be put into another female species as a surrogate to help increase offspring of the ailing zebra species, esp if there are no healthy females available for breeding-gestation, ie. zebra embryos put in antelope female, for gestation-birth-lactation if these organisms were close enough genetically.  The eggs could be stock-piled from a zebra female, fertilized with zebra sperm, but embryos placed in a surrogate animal who were genetically and taxonomically close.
107511
I would suggest you this subject: 'Why are most plants green?' It seems very interesting and challenging.