Category talk:Wildflowers

Valid category?

Note that because growing wild is a normal behaviour of plants, this is not a serious category.
Any not artificial grown individual of any flowering plant species can be named wildflower.
— The above commentary originally placed on Category page by User:Ies on 18 October 2008

I'm not so sure of that. First, due to selective breeding and hybridization and (more recently) genetic modification, numerous species are no longer equipped to survive in the wild — for them growing wild would not be "normal" behavior. Second, "wildflower" the way I'm accustomed to the word being used does not signify all wild-growing flowering plants, but only those that produce colorful blossoms attractive to people, and usually implies a smallish, herbaceous plant. (For example, grasses and trees would generally not be considered wildflowers.) As a result, I would consider this to be "serious category", but one that is defined culturally and aesthetically, not botanically. What I wonder is do other languages have a concept similar to the English concept of "wildflower" the way I defined it? — Werewombat (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many value judgements there; Ies is right. Also too subject to opinion; one person's wildflower is another person's weed, or invasive alien. - MPF (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)