Talk:Grass/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vodka ?

Vodka is not a grass product! Vodka comes from Potatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did grass as we know it first appear?

I heard on the DiscChan that it hadn't even appear yet during the Cretaceous period.

-G

Modern grass may not have, but there certainly were plants with the structure of a single narrow leaf growing straight up from the ground! bd2412 T 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edible grass

Stupid question but is grass edible to humans or any other creatures? If not, why not? A list of animal families which eat it would be useful? Thanks, --134.225.163.117 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, the true grass family Poaceae includes some of the staple food grains grown around the world. Rice, wheat, and oat, for example, are in the grass family. However, if you define "edible" as directly eating the grass leaves, then I'm not sure if any grasses are edible. SCHZMO ✍ 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at [1]. I know it's just a t-shirt, but the numbers seem reasonable, except for dietary fibers and carbohydrates, which i would expect to be more abundant. Is there any way to really find it out ?-- ExpImp^talkcon 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by edible. The actual leaves of common lawn grass (and as far as I know all other grass) are non-toxic to humans but give little to no nourishment. This is because they are mainly made of cellulose which humans can't digest. Animals like cows and horses that eat grass have special bacteria in their stomach to help them break the cellulose down, humans don't have this so we get almost no nutritional value from it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose for more info. Mloren (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says over here [2] that grass does contain vitamin C and beta-carotene. Wintermutiny (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and therefore, unless the vitamin C content is really minute, grass could be said to be of significant nutritional value to humans in not too far fetched situations. Wintermutiny (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion prior to move from Grass to Grass (disambiguation)

This page was just moved from grass to Family Poaceae last week. I am trying to establish some professional consistency in the botanical treatments by not relying on sometimes out-dated and generally always inprecise common names. Please do not move things around to a lower level of organization. - Marshman 06:16, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's the difference between a grass and a member of the Poaceae family? The article seems to imply that they are the same. If they are the same, then our naming convention (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) is that the title should be grass. The convention is well accepted, and there is a large number of pages which use common names instead of technically correct names. -- Tim Starling 06:27, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are many plants that are "grasses" that are not Poaceae (see seagrass). Poaceae is the correct botanical term for true grasses about which the article purports to discuss. The problem with common names will always be that they are inherently imprecise. I do not think all levels of taxonomy treated in Wikipedia need be titled by botanical terms, and common names are especially useful at the genus-species level. But down to that point we have pages that are an unorganized mess of botanical and common names as titles. I thought it would be more professional to discuss each family under its correct botanical designation. That provides more learning experience for the user than the "well we call that grass in my neck of the woods" approach that you have now. - Marshman 06:36, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To make a point (but actally proved an interesting addition, I think), I listed grasses in Hawaii that are NOT true grasses on this disambiguation page. It should be easy to double or triple this list if more places in the world chime in. Hopefully, this will justify having true grasses in their own article. - Marshman 17:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I think that answers my question. The current article is more or less fine with me. Perhaps a bit too prescriptive -- if botanists use one definition and everyone else uses another, that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, it means there are two definitions. But that can be fixed over time.

The incoming links need lots of work. -- Tim Starling 04:43, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it. I fixed all of the links to grass that should be to Poaceae - those that clearly need to go to true grasses. I'll recheck the others, but many are so general that a link to the disambiguation page actually makes sense to me (i.e., link to lawn or pasture would be a meaningful). From your comment about definitions of "grass" I believe you are not a biologist. In botany, as in most of the sciences, there is always a more exact definition than that used by the public at large. Scientists do not want to impose these definitions on others, but cannot work with the more general "public" definitions -- too ambiguous to permit work to proceed among scientists all over the world. Every discipline defines its terms in the way that works best for those participating in the discipline. For this reason I think the disambiguation page in Wikipedia deserves a lot more respect. It is where all of those disciplines branch out. Great place for clarifying different perspectives in language. Poaceae is the Botany "grass", but obviously not the only "grass" in the language. I predict disambiguation will make Wikipedia stand out from all the other knowledge sources on the net - Marshman 06:03, 28 Aug 2003

Page editing problem

I realize this off topic, but whenever I access the grass page, the search bar and toolbox disapear. I just thought id toss that out there. - Vipersp51 10:32, 03/02/06 (UTC)

Strange. I do not see that. Maybe you should try some other articles to see how general the problem is on your computer. - Marshman 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--A section on how to plant grass would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.169.200.17 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 8. SCHZMO ✍ 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Does grass "correctly" refer to plants in the family Poaceae (as cedar "correctly" refers to those in the genus Cedrus [but other plants are also named "cedar"]) or is the name grass equally acceptable for all the plants listed on this page. SCHZMO ✍ 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grass popular??

Quote: Grasses are popular in rain forests in South America and in other parts of the world.

What does this mean??? Han-Kwang 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a linguistic gaffe confusing "popular" for something to do with population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TariqAlSuave (talk • contribs)

Maybe it's because rain forest occupants really like the grass? ;-) bd2412 T 07:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page content

As per the WikiProject Disambiguation this page should conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). All the descriptive material duplicating the existing Poaceae page should be removed, and the ==Types of grass== section bulleted. - MPF 09:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Grass disambiguation page. If you think it should be merged, use that tag. --Usgnus 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're actually different types of disambig pages - this one is for all the plants that are called 'grass' but aren't real grasses; the other is for things called grass that aren't plants (police informers, etc). MPF 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an unnecessary layer of complexity. The way I see it, here are some options:

move disambiguation type material to Grass (disambiguation) and make this page a redirect to Poaceae.
move Grass (disambiguation) stuff here and make that page a redirect to here.
leave it as is (for now)

--Usgnus 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with option 2 (merge Grass (disambiguation) here) - MPF 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands now is not a disambiguation page. If the page is to remain as it is now, the disambiguation tag should be removed. It may be valid to consider having it remain a general introductory page on plant-type grasses, I don't know. But if this is returned to something similar to a pre-June 11, 2006 state, which is more like a typical disambiguation page, then I see no reason to have two separate disambiguation pages for the same term. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my intention - the additions from the 11 June version largely duplicate the existing Poaceae page - MPF 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another option:

copy types of grasses to Grass (disambiguation), which I've already done, remove the types of grasses from this article, and keep the remainder of the page as "a general introductory page on plant-type grasses". --Usgnus 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that would work well - MPF 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support making this a redirect to Poaceae or Grass (disambiguation). Any kind of split disambiguation page, whether according to MPFs or Usgnus suggestion, is too confusing. --Smack (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a split disambiguation page. This is an article about "grass", a maleable concept which covers Poaceae and related plants. Removing the list of the grass-like plants merely makes the article less informative. The Grass (disambiguation) page, by contrast, is not entirely about grass, but also about people named Grass, films with Grass in the name, and other uses of the term. Note, by the way, that Grass can not redirect to Grass (disambiguation); it would have to be the other way around. Primary article titles do not redirect to disambiguation titles. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to clarify for the lay person what is and what is not technically a "grass" - I venture that most people looking up "grass" in Wikipedia do not have botony degrees, and are likely to be helped by an article that explains these things in general terms. bd2412 T 01:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a disambig page until 9 June 2006, when someone (presumably unaware of the Poaceae page) greatly expanded the page with a lot of detail that should have been put on the Poaceae page, not here. I agree that Grass should not redirect to Grass (disambiguation), which is why I've suggested the reverse (i.e., merge Grass (disambiguation) into Grass) - MPF 08:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article (and not a disambig page) in November of 2005. It had earlier been a redirect to Poaceae, which had been objected to because many plants referred to as "grass" are not in that family. Now it is at least the seed of an article that will bud and grow int a flower that will help steer those of us who are not botanists away from confusion. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge There seems to be enough content related to the concept of 'grass' that is not specific to 'true grasses' which justifies the existence of the 'Grass' article, as such content could not be on the 'Grass (dab)' page, which is necessary due to the non-botanical meanings. —TJJFV 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grass, most popular plant on earth?

Just been watching 'Planet Earth' on the BBC and Attenborough (spelling) noted that Grass is the most popular plant on the planet (i.e. more grass than any other plant). Since people here seem to know plenty about grass is this worth adding to the main article?

Also i removed the statement about 'grass being greener' as a reference to the greeness of grass. The statement is about wanting what you cannot have (and that things look better from a distance than maybe they are), rather than anything to do with grass of itself.

Yes that seems like a valid point. As for removing reference about the greeness of grass, I think it should be kept but moved to a section about folklore. Think outside the box 12:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I went through the history of this article and found that the vast majority of edits are eitehr juvenile vandalism, or reversion of same - with the vandalism mostly coming from IPs. So, I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to see if that shakes out any regular vandals. I'll unprotect on request if anyone thinks this is a bad idea. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quantity of vandalism and the response to my last request for protection is a joke - [3]. I tried; I failed. It should be perfectly obvious to most reasonable people that there are an ongoing problem here, even if the protection list admins are too shortsighted to see it. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been semi-protected before, and I have just done so again. Until October. Hopefully by then the more persistent vandals will forget it exists (or will grow up some), but I have no high hopes that this article will cease to be a vandal magnet. bd2412 T 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work ! It's just annoying that the protection admins haven't reacted sensibly. I think that your hope is in vein, in my experience there are always plenty more vandals to replace those who stop. Being the nickname for Marijuana, it's a natural target. If the vandalism occurs again, I'd support indefinate semi or indeed full protection. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?

I was surprised to see this article doesn't have an infobox most lifeforms, species, genus etc do; is the term "grass" to broad to give an infobox correctly. This article says grass is monocotyledon, that article also has no infobox. I don't know all the info could anyone who does create the infoboxes?

Carlwev 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Why is this page such a huge target for vandals? I can think of many more interesting and topical pages to vandalize. C1k3 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the vandal appeal derives from an alternative meaning accorded to the word, which may be most familiar to those likely to vandalize. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but most of the edits appear to be nonsensical.... well, okay, now that I think about it, it makes sense. :) C1k3 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish there were some way to remove the vandalism edits from the edit history of the page altogether. bd2412 T 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit?

I removed the following from the article:

It is interesting to note that in Sanskrit language- the word " go grassum". "Grassum" means 'One mouthful of food' and 'Go' means Cow. Thus , go grassum, means a mouthful of food for the cow.

I did a fairly intensive Google search and have not found any evidence that grassum means anything in Sanskrit. bd2412 T 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under exposed picture

Image:Grass_covered_house_in_Iceland_1972.jpg is so underexposed that I don't think it's suitable for this (or any) article. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I think the replacement image is pretty far away. I wish someone would upload a better grass roof picture. bd2412 T 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Growth rate

Kind of an odd question, but I've always wondered what is the actual growth rate of grass? Rafi5288 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably variable, and very specific to species, climate, and conditions. Maybe time of year, too. bd2412 T 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd content

This page is not balanced very well. The largest paragraph should probably not be about cricket. I think only a summary of information is needed for it's use in sports. Don't really need all the infor about cricket that is more at home in Cricket Pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.36.159 (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy

What about grass allergies? There should be an article with cross links to grass allergies / allergens. They are important. There should me more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.14.48 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. bd2412 T 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass biology

The article is missing some important information like:

Are there any names for the types of grass? What are they, whats the differences? where can they be found?

What is the life span of grass? How does it populate? What minerals does it need to grow? How much light does grass need to be able to live? Do we have a DNA anayalist of grass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.165.101 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article really addresses a nickname which does not coincide with the specific biological entity. To find out information of the detail you seek, you should probably look to the individual articles on the plants mentioned in the article. I'll see if I can clarify that some. bd2412 T 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

Should mention grass first appeared 20-30M years ago. JAF1970 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Social Commentary

There are (were) two paragraphs in this article that deal with the supposed social importance of and status implied by the condition of suburban grass and the control of this supposed phenomenon by homeowner's associations. Does the editor of these paragraphs have any sources for the claim that this phenomenon exists? Is there a source that says it occurs particularly in the US, Canada and Britain? Are there any quotable sources for the relative prevalence of this in say, Italy and Australia? I also think the final sentence of these two paragraphs is not NPOV, and ascribes notions of supposed class hierarchy to persons who like to mow their lawn. I am deleting these unsourced paragraphs.
Perhaps the editor might also productively ask himself why having an allergy to grass is considered the converse of believing it affords some social status. Cottonshirt τ 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Found a few sources. One cites as a reason for lawn maintenance:

“

...the desire for upward mobility and its manifestation in the lawn. As Virginia Jenkins, author of The Lawn, put it quite bluntly, 'Upper middle-class Americans emulated aristocratic society with their own small, semirural estates.' In general, the lawn was one of the primary selling points of these new suburban homes, as it shifted social class designations from the equity and ubiquity of urban homes connected to the streets with the upper-middle class designation of a "healthy" green space and and the status symbol that is the front lawn.

”

Matthew J. Lindstrom, Hugh Bartling, Suburban sprawl: culture, theory, and politics (2003), p. 72, quoting Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession (1994), p.21. See also Paul Robbins and Julie T. Sharp, "Producing and Consuming Chemicals: The Moral Economy of the American Lawn", Economic Geography 79:4 (2003), p. 425-45; reprinted in William G. Moseley, David A. Lanegran, Kavita Pandit, The Introductory Reader in Human Geography (2007), p. 323-36. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to my point is just plain good manners, thank you. But the point of the exercise is to improve the encyclopedia. If you have good sources then put it in the article. Cottonshirt τ 10:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive Article?

This article seems to be largely a repetition of the Poaceae article. I think the articles should be merged in content, and then one should be made to forward to the other. Dominicanpapi82 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created to provide a direction for several thousand disambiguation links which would not have been appropriate to point to Poaceae, as there are numerous plants which are called "grasses" but do not fit into that family. bd2412 T 19:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? I can't think of any offhand but am happy to be pointed out a few exceptions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China grass, more commonly known as Ramie (Boehmeria nivea), a nettle grown for bast fibres, in the Family Urticaceae
Ditch grass or Wigeon grass (Ruppia maritima) in the Family Ruppiaceae
Goosegrass (Galium aparine)
Mondo grass or Lily turf (Ophiopogon japonicus), an Asian ornamental ground cover
Nutgrass, a common lawn pest (Cyperus rotundus) in the Family Cyperaceae
Pepper grass in the family Brassicaceae
Sawgrass, abundant in sub-tropical marshlands (Cladium spp.) in the Family Cyperaceae
Scurvy-grass (Cochlearia species) in the Family Brassicaceae
Scurvy-grass Sorrel (Oxalis enneaphylla) in the Family Oxalidaceae
Seagrasses, including Eel grass (Zostera spp.)
"Sleeping grass" (Mimosa pudica) a legume (Family Fabaceae) and lawn weed
Xyridaceae, known as the yellow-eyed grass family

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton grass (Eriophorum spp.) in the family Cyperaceae.
Good Friday Grass (Luzula campestris) in the family Juncaceae.
deergrass (Trichophorum spp.) in the family Cyperaceae.
Grass of Parnassus (Parnassia), in the family Celastraceae Lavateraguy (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Knotgrass ([Polygonum]] s.s.), in the family Polygonaceae Lavateraguy (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whitlow grass (Draba spp. and Erophila spp.), in the family Brassicaceae. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a disambiguation page? It sounds like an excellent fit for the list above.

And blue-eyed grasses (Monocots, alas), Sisyrinchium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying all this to Grass (disambiguation), which I hadn't previously noticed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disambiguation page, which also includes the many meanings of "grass" which have nothing to do with the collection of plants thought of by laymen as grasses. bd2412 T 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, huh? If people don't think of them as grasses, why do they call them grasses? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of grass

The following material was removed from the article by Richard New Forest on the basis that it more properly belongs in Poaceae or in plant:

Like most plants, grasses are usually green due to the presence of [[chlorophyll]] in their cells used to carry out [[photosynthesis]].<ref>[[Isaac Asimov]], ''Photosynthesis‎'' (1968) , p. 121.</ref> Many grasses are also both toughness and abrasiveness, promoted by the presence of deposits of [[silicon dioxide]] in the leaf epidermis and other parts of the plant.<ref name="WMNA">George A. Feldhamer, Bruce Carlyle Thompson, Joseph A. Chapman, ''Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation‎'' (2003), p. 356.</ref> These characteristics have, in turn, prompted evolutionary adaptations in the teeth and stomachs of animals that subsist primarily on grass.<ref name="WMNA"/>

I do not feel that the repetitiveness of this material with other articles is at all problematic. The encyclopedia should be user-friendly enough to permit people visiting this article to find out why grass is green (or tough, or abrasive) to do so without having to guess which link to follow to arrive at that information. The article Plant does not discuss texture or toughness, and I find Poaceae to be a poor substitute for describing a characteristic that also appears in Cyperaceae, many species of which are also popularly regarded as grass. bd2412 T 23:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing.

I can't see that this is the place for discussion of chlorophyll. Yes, grass is green, but so are most other plants, and surely we can't cover the greenness of every plant in all their articles! What about other plant characteristics, such as roots, leaves, flowers and seeds? Do we describe all the features of plants in the article for every plant? It seems to me that the Grass article should cover things that are characteristic of grass in particular, not things that are shared with most other plants.

Phytoliths are not a characteristic of grass (as covered by this article) because the article also covers rushes, which as far as I know do not have them; also, true grasses and sedges are by no means the only plants to have them. This feature is better covered in Poaceae and Cyperaceae, and of course in Phytolith. We could however perhaps mention them briefly here, making it clear that not all "grasses" share this characteristic and indicating where to find out more. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grass in fiction

Reminds me of this. Especially since one of the two important SF novels mentioned is so important it redlinks. 99.164.60.84 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish link

There's no link to the Swedish page (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gräs) and I cannot add it since this article is semi-protected. Could somebody fix it? 27.32.110.51 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Keith D (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Cricket section the length of test matches is incorrect. Test matches are 5 days not 7 days. Please change the 7 for 5 Tapuboss (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "several" - it seems to me that the grass can get worn down in fewer than five days, even. bd2412 T 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have set this edit request to answered in light of the answer above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous period

The Cretaceous period circa 145±4 to 66±0.3 million years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.12.253 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grass is not synonymous with graminoid

The term graminoid is used to refer collectively to grasses and grass-like plants (normally sedges and rushes); i.e. the words grass and graminoid are not synonymous, as implied in several places on this page. Reference to any textbook on ecology or vegetation description will show this. Indeed, in ecology, the grouping graminoid (grasses, sedges and rushes) is often used as a functional group, and opposed to forbs (broad-leaved herbs).

Yes, I don't see any basis for the claim that sedges and rushes are grasses. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in a loose folk taxonomic sense, "grass" is a category/common name that includes sedges and rushes, but that sense could probably be addressed in the lead of Poaceae or with a hatnote. I'd support moving this article to Graminoid, redirecting grass to Poaceae, and moving content from this article to Poaceae as appropriate (the Lawns section is really about Poaceae only, although lawns ought to be mentioned in an article about Graminoids. Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding references that use "graminoid" to refer to seven families in the clade that includes Anarthriaceae and Poaceae (on APweb [4]), and it seems to me that all members of this clade could fairly be described as grass/bamboo like. I'm not suggesting that "grass" or "graminoid" be phylogenetically defined; "grass" is a folk form taxon with a history predating phylogenetic nomenclature. It might be good to include references for "graminoid" that discuss the clade (which, aside from Poaceae is restricted to the tropics and Southern hemisphere). Even better would be to find pre-phylogenetic references that include the "grassy" plants of the Southern hemisphere in the definition of grass/graminoid (which traditionally is polyphyletic group of plants found in the Northern hemisphere). Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you want to do with Trithuria? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a "grass" to me, but after a quick glance at Google scholar, I'm not sure that anybody has called it a graminoid. It looks like a graminoid clade including Centrolepidaceae has been recognized since the 70s, and Hydatellaceae has split out by some authorities since the 80s. Is there a paper that includes Trithuria in Centrolepidaceae and which includes Centrolepidaceae in the graminoids? Perhaps. I'm not too hung up on the precise phylogeny though. I'm more interested in whether the other grass-like plants in the clade have been called "graminoids" as a term for a form taxon (not as a term for the clade itself). The traditional grass+sedge+rush "graminoid" form taxon seems to me to have a Northern hemisphere bias, and I'm curious whether any Southern hemisphere botanists have previously included other grass-like plants in the definition of "graminoid" as a form taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawns "throughout the world"

"In some places, particularly in suburban areas throughout the world, the maintenance of a grass lawn is a sign of a homeowner's responsibility to the overall appearance of their neighborhood." Isn't it a bit much to say that this is the case throughout the world? I have heard that this is an American thing, and a few Western nations could probably qualify as well, but I don't know how many or which nations and the article doesn't seem to know, either. finval (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don't see lawns like that in South Asia or Southeast Asia (except parts of Australia). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but suburban areass (at least in the sense that the suburb article focuses on), are pretty much a feature of the parts of the world where lawns are considered important. Plantdrew (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "throughout the world". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]