File talk:Wine grape diagram en.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

No, a locule is the chamber itself, not half of the fruit. This diagram is confusing because of the orientation of the grape, versus the other one, making it appear as if each locule is a top or bottom half . I'm also concerned about your sources. When you do a biological diagram at this level it requires a specific type of reference, like a biological description from a flora with its accompanying diagram. I asked the person who deleted my comments from meta to post them on my talk page so I can post them here also.

Except there are two seeds in each locule and also two in each locular cavity, and what you have identified as the locular cavity, if indeed it is a cavity, is clearly surrounding and shaping a single seed. This is not the locular cavity of a grape.

i have added a note n the image description becouse of the angle in wich a cuted the grape the cavity cant posible show the 2 seeds it contains. also as a side note, would you mind signing your coments please -LadyofHats (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

\

Sure, I'll sign. Could you correct your diagrams before you nominate them for quality images? Could you use botanical resources if you're striving for botanical diagrams? Could you figure out what a locule is? You know, you don't have to research this in English if it's not your first language. Pop up Spanish sources, German, whatever, but make them accurate, please. Here's my signature, I'll trade you for you withdrawing your nomination for this image as a "quality image" while it's a botanical disaster. --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Could you correct your diagrams before you nominate them for quality images?
    • I nominate them presicely to be corrected, for me it is the same as being in the review process in the Philip Greenspun illustration project. it helps me so that as many people as posible see my diagram and are able to give their opinion and realise mistakes i have not seen myself. So, NO i will not withdraw my nomination.
      • I figured that would be your attitude, which is the same attitude you've used before when I've taken the time to correct your drawings, so many of which are WRONG and spread all over the internet in dozens of language. How much more wrong knowledge are you going to contribute to the internet search engines? When you separate your text like this would you mind signing your comments please? Anyway, this diagram has no botanical support for your guesses. You've provided none, as the diagram you gave that you say you used for it, doesn't show what you then drew. It shows a regular chamber that widens on the outside of the seed, not one that is shaped to the seed. Your "locules" are wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you use botanical resources if you're striving for botanical diagrams?
    • Could you site sources for saying my botanical diagram is not correct? until now i have acted in good faith that you have some biological-botanical knoledge.It would be really constructive for me and the wikipedia if you could ground your critics with some "hard" facts. As for the acuracy of my diagram, well so far it passes to all the sources i have and i have also corrected it everytime someone has showed me it is incorrect.
      • It does not pass all the sources you've used because the source you've used does not show a chmaber shaped to wrap precisely around the seed, what you've drawn. I'll provide your last article as my botanical resource for showing that yours is wrong. That's my hard fact. And, no, you have not corrected everything, because you've failed to correct some of the things I first brought up. --Blechnic (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you figure out what a locule is?
    • Sure i did, and also marked it on the diagram, and also made a note on it. and i also been completly convinced that it is right. I also explained why if doesnt show the 2 seeds it contains.
  • You know, you don't have to research this in English if it's not your first language. Pop up Spanish sources, German, whatever, but make them accurate, please.
    • i have made it as acurate as i posible can with my sources. to imply that it is still unacurate would mean that all my sources are. and that is why i ask you to tell me what is YOUR source to imply that is a "disaster" just as you said, i dont mind if it is in english or german or spanish.. you can even get some in italian or portuguese and i would find someone to read it to me. But right now i have this feeling that you are already figthing against this diagram just for the fun of arguing. please do as many critics as you want , but do them in a constructive way. i dont mind having to spend weeks in a bibliotec reading every book you site. ( as long as it has to do with the subject) But make things so that the diagram can improve.\
      • No, all of your sources are not inaccurate, you've just interpreted what they're showing inaccurately. For example, you've disconnected the vascular system in the skin from the vascular system of the plant--this means, I think, that the skin is a parasitic plant on the fruit. There's no fun in having to tell you this at all. You just don't seem to understand that drawings you've used and you're entirely hostile to correcting your drawings. Yes, they're beautiful, but they're not biological drawings when they're wrong. You've claimed the sketch is one thing, a biological illustration, which it's not. It's just a pretty picture of some grapes. --Blechnic (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My source to show what a disaster this drawing is is your last source and your source that actually shows a connected vascular system. Your own sources show what's wrong with your sources.
      • Just LOOK at your own sources!!!!!!! --Blechnic (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while it's a botanical disaster.
    • I strongly disagree with this, you are overreacting.-LadyofHats (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not overreacting. When you draw something biological, it has to be according to facts. Yours is not. Even your references show it's not correct! --Blechnic (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're ever ready to listen, to look at your sources with an eye to understanding them, and to correct your diagram to make it correct, let me know. Until then you're just pushing a bad drawing out into the internet. Then you'll have it translated and claim you're not responsible! Just like with your little bacterial cell which pops up all over the world as a bad diagram because you used bad sources and you used them improperly. --Blechnic (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be changed ?

[edit]

This diagram focuses mainly on two topics :

  • the vascular system
  • the different pressure areas.

Concerning the first topic, the today's version needs some corrections and improvings :

  • vascular bundles are fundamentally connected to the “brush”, which is not a specific organ but just the remains at their junction of the first-order vascular bundles when the grain is pulled off its stalk,
  • there are no peripheral bundles inside the skin. Skin of grapes is made of fruit epiderm (also named exocarp and which is not vascularized) and of stacks of cells snatched from the flesh (mesocarp) because epiderm firmly sticks to underlying cell layings. But the closer first vascular bundles occur only about 1 mm underneath as one can see on this figure from this paper.
  • ovular vascular bundles are connected not specially to the locule (which is just a chamber) but really to the seeds as one can see on this figure from this paper. Seeds need for their development nutriments they get thanks to the vascular bundles.
  • I have purchased some grapes to check what is also visible : scar of the stylar is always visible at the tip of the grain, and vascular network also joins at this point. Scars of insertions of stamens are not always visible ; it depends on the variety.

It seems (I didn't find botanical sources but all winer sources say so) the seed to be really an albuminous one with triploid endosperm, like Ricinus communis ones. Endosperm would contain the fat reserves that provide grape seeds oil.

--B.navez (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking the time in seeking more sources, i was really lost in this matter. Anyway i have made some big changes:

  • I changed how the grape was slided to show the periferial bundles, I also got some grapes and spent some time slicing them, i think i understand why it was that my souce was placing them at the top of the skin, even if they usually go arround the fruit some distance below.
  • i changed the size of the seed, in must frapes i cut the seed was about 1/6 th of the total diameter of the fruit in the horizontal axe and 1/3 in the vertical one.
  • I changed the locule once more, disconected it from the central vascular bundle and made it a bit more like it apeared in the slice of the fruit.

I am still not sure about the periferial bundles since it is using far too much surface from the grape i may do the cut smaller but wahted to see if it was right this way:) -LadyofHats (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's much better that way
size of the cut for the peripheral bundles seems good to me
peripheral bundles makes really a network , branchaison of the vessels is in the other direction (descending)
locule is the chamber where the seeds are, your arrow is good but I'm not sure it will be correctly understood by people if you indicate the smaller one (smaller because undeveloped seed or edge position of the cutting ?)
difference between septal flesh and inner flesh is not obvious, septal makes a median of the grain into two hemispheres not just a central position. Not easy to represent !
Courage !
--B.navez (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEST see,

  • i changed the locule to locules and pointed both.
  • the second seed apears smaller becouse of the angle of cut.
  • I am not sure i get you in what septial flesh is. is it the flesh in between the seeds? in all the grapes i cuted i couldnt see any ain diference between the inner flesh and the one in the middle. so is it this diference visible at all?. maybe i could do a small note below septial. something like "dividing hemispheres" or so. what do you think?

-LadyofHats (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good !
For the septal flesh, it's easier to explain with a tomato whose structure is the same. In grapes flesh is approximatively all the same color and differences of density are not really eyenaked visible.
Grapes are syncarpic fruits. They derive from several carpels : outside nothing is visible, but inside the separation (septum) does exist like for this tomato. Basically, grapes come from two carpels, inner cavity of each carpel is the locule and each locule has got 2 seeds (in tomato many seeds) so each berry of grapes should have 4 seeds (in fact you may have additional locules or undeveloped seeds, so an unfixed number of seeds). Septal flesh has a different origin (the septum) than inner flesh. Septal flesh looks more like outer flesh. It is a bit denser than inner flesh. Inner flesh is more juicy. That's really not easy to represent on the diagram but I'm sure you will find a way.
Cheers
--B.navez (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septal flesh

[edit]

you know i have been giving this one a very long thought. and i have some doubths on it:

  • this diagram is about the morphology from a grape right, so i should indicate where the septal flesh is and if posible make it look diferent than the rest, but not necesarilly in a way that explains clearly WHAT septal flesh is or?

it is only that as you pointed before grapes are not the best example to explain it, and even if i was to cut the grape in the other direction( horizontally) becouse the locules are colapsed and there is no really a clear diference in color. well it wouldnt be clear either. Even if i would cut out a biger section of the grape and leave only the septal flesh, it would only look like a piece of flesh from the midle.

  • i could make a diferent color area to indicate that there is a diference in density, but it wouldnt make a huge diference in the diagram itself. wouldnt be necesary to explain that in the image description.. what do you think?

-LadyofHats (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also cut some grapes (then eaten them) and really I didn't manage to see clearly any septum ? I have googled too and found diagrams showing septum only on early stages of the fruit formation. Afterwards it seems to make no visible difference, just a central part whose origin is septal. I think the diagram is OK like that. You've done good job. Cheers. --B.navez (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An enology perspective

[edit]

First off---WOW. It looks gorgeous. Admittedly, I'm not very versed in the botanical details (re: septals & locules, etc) so I can't speak to Blechnic concerns but I can say from a winemaking/enology perspective the details (essentially the right side of the photo) are accurate. This illustration will work wonderfully in the w:Winemaking article but I'll probably hold off on adding it to w:grape till it gets the seal of approval from the botanists. Thank you for all your hard work on this! Agne27 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering error

[edit]

It seems there is a very slight rendering error along the left side of the free pedicel. The yellow coloring seems to escape the black outline there. Should be an easy fix. Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Wine_grape_diagram_en.svg&oldid=15092872"