Let's do a comparison.
Terrestrial plants do not grow in captivity they grow in the wild.
They are so tolerant of weather and harness there own energy and water sources by the natural weather and have there own Defense against pests and insects.
Domestic plants need human care and watered by humans. They also need to become established in there environment to adapt well.
They also become groomed and cut back to look good in there environment.

What do you think? Can we explain this further?

Terrestrial plants are ones that grow on land, as opposed to aquatic plants that grow in water. Domesticated plants have been modified by humans to be more useful or more attractive. Both have defenses and adaptations for survival but the domesticated ones sometimes have stronger ones due to being selected by humans. They don't necessarily need human assistance to survive. Sometimes they escape and cause disturbances to native ecosystems.

CPPgardener said:Terrestrial plants are ones that grow on land, as opposed to aquatic plants that grow in water. Domesticated plants have been modified by humans to be more useful or more attractive. Both have defenses and adaptations for survival but the domesticated ones sometimes have stronger ones due to being selected by humans. They don't necessarily need human assistance to survive. Sometimes they escape and cause disturbances to native ecosystems.

Plants are very good at growing very deep roots into the soil and has it's own way of storing water and adapts to the atmosphere. So many native plants are naturally adapted to being terrestrial plants even though theycan be domesticated plants too.
Almost many natives are adaptable in soil and can tolerate dry hot periods and drought situations and or frost.many natives are very tough and can establish very quickly being under domestic society with humans.

Native plants are always better when growing for pollinators such as native bees... These plants are custom designed to be pollinated by the local pollinators. For example; squash plants, which evolved in the Americas, and the native bumblebees. Terrestrial simply means land, vs aquatic, which means water. Not to say that "domestic" plants are bad, these are mans development of native plants for specific crops or other fruits and flowers.

Squash plants are great but they might attract slugs and snails same as nasturtiums. Giving them the ability to not manage on there own as they need there fellow humans to maintain them. But some other plants are defensive against insects. Some plants attract beneficial insects to eat other plant eating insects. It's a good biological control against Pests while some other plants are not as advanced as some.

Squash have a worse problem with squash vine borers.

Terrestrial plants grow in dirt.
Terrestrial (dirt) vs arboreal(trees) vs aquatic( submerged). Then we have parasitic or symbiotic. Then we have a thousand more categories, native vs invasive as one example

What Are you interested in? What are you really asking? It sounds like you might be interested in invasive species vs native species, and perhaps it's a language barrier?

you clearly have a point, I'm interested in hearing your initial question and viewpoint, but your post is gibberish

You may be asking about breeding by selective fertilization and manual selection of offspring like we do with dog breeds, or perhaps you question the more direct genome changes that have been done without having to drown puppies,

No need to be rude.

Turbosaurus said:Terrestrial plants grow in dirt.
Terrestrial (dirt) vs arboreal(trees) vs aquatic( submerged). Then we have parasitic or symbiotic. Then we have a thousand more categories, native vs invasive as one example

What Are you interested in? What are you really asking? It sounds like you might be interested in invasive species vs native species, and perhaps it's a language barrier?

you clearly have a point, I'm interested in hearing your initial question and viewpoint, but your post is gibberish

Well then you make a post better then mine. Rude . I don't think it's gibberish talking about two different types of plants growing in what conditions. I am not here to please everyone if my post to you sounds gibberish. Why don't you make a better post top shot! See how good you are. If your not happy with my post then make a better post.

OK. I think lordfungii chose some terms VERY poorly. Wild plants grow without human help. Domestic plants are those we have altered to our benefit and usually require our assistance to continue existing. We humans basically depend on altered crops to survive. And we have sure altered some crops!

Corn was once wheatlike before we started chosing the largest heads. Wheat was once a crop where the heads shatterred and fell to the ground uselessly to us, until we discovered a few with double genes that held together when cut. So we saved some of those seeds and planted them. Apples evolved from roses; the rose hip is the original apple. And were originally like crabapples until humans started choosing the seeds of the largest ones to grow.

Every cole crop originally came from a small leafy bok choy like thing that we selected in various places and selected some different desirable locally-defined properties that lead to broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and brussels sprouts.

Asparagus was once a swampy fernish plant that we made into a very wonderful veggie.

Do you think that oranges originally just "grew on trees" on their own? We found a small little citrus and turned it into lemons, limes, oranges, and grapefruits.

Etc, etc, etc.... There is almost nothing we eat today that we didn't work over millennia to improve and adapt to our desires.

Yardenman said:OK. I think lordfungii chose some terms VERY poorly. Wild plants grow without human help. Domestic plants are those we have altered to our benefit and usually require our assistance to continue existing. We humans basically depend on altered crops to survive. And we have sure altered some crops!

Corn was once wheatlike before we started chosing the largest heads. Wheat was once a crop where the heads shatterred and fell to the ground uselessly to us, until we discovered a few with double genes that held together when cut. So we saved some of those seeds and planted them. Apples evolved from roses; the rose hip is the original apple. And were originally like crabapples until humans started choosing the seeds of the largest ones to grow.

Every cole crop originally came from a small leafy bok choy like thing that we selected in various places and selected some different desirable locally-defined properties that lead to broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and brussels sprouts.

Asparagus was once a swampy fernish plant that we made into a very wonderful veggie.

Do you think that oranges originally just "grew on trees" on their own? We found a small little citrus and turned it into lemons, limes, oranges, and grapefruits.

Etc, etc, etc.... There is almost nothing we eat today that we didn't work over millennia to improve and adapt to our desires.

Wild plants don't need humans to help them, that is correct! But there are always advantages and disadvantages of terrestrial plants in the wild. Some wild plants don't survive and just die naturally due to disease and deficiency in the soil.
They can still struggle to survive and if they get human help they can regenerate better more abundantly . But some plants can survive productively without any human care for plants.

Btw I am prepared to take criticism gladly. If there is something I am missing please let me know.

lordfungii said:Btw I am prepared to take criticism gladly. If there is something I am missing please let me know.

Glad to hear that. You said "Some wild plants don't survive and just die naturally due to disease and deficiency in the soil.
They can still struggle to survive and if they get human help they can regenerate better more abundantly"

I agree. But that says nothing about wild crops being domesticated. I was discussing wild crops being altered to human food.

Your statement mentioned keeping useful primitive wild crops continuing, mine involved humans improving some crops.

Nearly all crops we call domesticated were wild once. As well as cats and dogs..... just saying.

Wild plants is a misnomer. There is some confusion because of that tag. I think that the correct tag is "Native Plants". Now because they are native plants that naturally occur in out environment does not necessarily mean that they do not need our help from time to time.
I am thinking of something like cattail. A cattail that seeds itself in the proper habitat that has water year round does not need our assistance. But some cattails might seed themselves in areas where their seasonal water supply has been threatened. Typically by mans intervention. ie a new road goes through the area depriving them of the rainwater runoff that they used to get from that hillside that now has a road on top of it.
Domestic plants is another odd name that causes confusion. "Mass Produced In Order For Humans To Buy Us" might be a better name! But that is too long.

Terrestrial plants is also an odd term since oranges, perennials, annuals rhododendrons, laurels, oaks, maples, honeysuckles, daisies and Dahlias are all terrestrials growing in soil.
As has been pointed out, Aquatic is water loving or growing with wet feet or growing submerged. There is the term semi-aquatic for those that spend part of their year with a load of water around them but it dries up at some point.

Citrus was originally available as lemons, limes, oranges and grapefruits, they did not arise all from the orange. Botanists and citrus specialists through their breeding programs produce larger oranges by selective breeding or they cross an orange from North America with an orange from some where else.
You also have a few types of plants that no one has mentioned at all: Lithophytes and Epiphytes. How about Alpine?

There needs to be some adherence to similar terms. To suddenly use different terms for things is what got this post 'in trouble' right from the get go.
Just my 2 cents worth.

But the post title "Terrestrial versus Domestic" is not proper. "Native Plants" versus Commercially Massed Produced" might be better but even that is not right.

BigBill said:Wild plants is a misnomer. There is some confusion because of that tag. I think that the correct tag is "Native Plants". Now because they are native plants that naturally occur in out environment does not necessarily mean that they do not need our help from time to time.
I am thinking of something like cattail. A cattail that seeds itself in the proper habitat that has water year round does not need our assistance. But some cattails might seed themselves in areas where their seasonal water supply has been threatened. Typically by mans intervention. ie a new road goes through the area depriving them of the rainwater runoff that they used to get from that hillside that now has a road on top of it.
Domestic plants is another odd name that causes confusion. "Mass Produced In Order For Humans To Buy Us" might be a better name! But that is too long.

Terrestrial plants is also an odd term since oranges, perennials, annuals rhododendrons, laurels, oaks, maples, honeysuckles, daisies and Dahlias are all terrestrials growing in soil.
As has been pointed out, Aquatic is water loving or growing with wet feet or growing submerged. There is the term semi-aquatic for those that spend part of their year with a load of water around them but it dries up at some point.

Citrus was originally available as lemons, limes, oranges and grapefruits, they did not arise all from the orange. Botanists and citrus specialists through their breeding programs produce larger oranges by selective breeding or they cross an orange from North America with an orange from some where else.
You also have a few types of plants that no one has mentioned at all: Lithophytes and Epiphytes. How about Alpine?

There needs to be some adherence to similar terms. To suddenly use different terms for things is what got this post 'in trouble' right from the get go.
Just my 2 cents worth.

But the post title "Terrestrial versus Domestic" is not proper. "Native Plants" versus Commercially Massed Produced" might be better but even that is not right.

I was talking about origins of domesticated citrus.

Per Wikipedia:

"The large citrus fruit of today evolved originally from small, edible berries over millions of years. Citrus species began to diverge from a common ancestor about 15 million years ago, at about the same time that Severinia (such as the Chinese box orange) diverged from the same ancestor. About 7 million years ago, the ancestors of Citrus split into the main genus, Citrus, and the genus Poncirus (such as the trifoliate orange), which is closely enough related that it can still be hybridized with all other citrus and used as rootstock. These estimates are made using genetic mapping of plant chloroplasts.[12] A DNA study published in Nature in 2018 concludes that the genus Citrus first evolved in the foothills of the Himalayas, in the area of Assam (India), western Yunnan (China), and northern Myanmar."

But more importantly, about modern citruses and again from Wikipedia"

"The three ancestral (sometimes characterized as "original" or "fundamental") species in the genus Citrus associated with modern Citrus cultivars are the mandarin orange, pomelo, and citron. Almost all of the common commercially important citrus fruits (sweet oranges, lemons, grapefruit, limes, and so on) are hybrids involving these three species with each other, their main progenies, and other wild Citrus species within the last few thousand years".

And we created them...

Yardenman said:

Glad to hear that. You said "Some wild plants don't survive and just die naturally due to disease and deficiency in the soil.
They can still struggle to survive and if they get human help they can regenerate better more abundantly"

I agree. But that says nothing about wild crops being domesticated. I was discussing wild crops being altered to human food.



Your statement mentioned keeping useful primitive wild crops continuing, mine involved humans improving some crops.

Would you believe me if I said wild terrestrial plants can communicate with each to each other to exchange nutrients like carbon and nitrogen. Plants actually alert other plants if in distress and one plant can help another plant by exchanging nutrients from the root system.
A lot of people think that's crazy but it's scientifically proven plants speak there own photosynthetic language especially wild plants then domestic plants. Domestic plants do communicate to other plants differently then how terrestrial plants communicate.its a chemical messenger or hormone.
Yes! Crops may lack that ability because they do need human care.
What I am saying when I say that is...
Terrestrial plants look after themselves while domestic plants need help from insects beneficial insects and humans to maintain them.
But if you turn the tables around wild plants can exchange nutrients from other plants and feed themselves while domestic plants rely on good insects and humans to keep them established like I said.
Some other wild plants other then domestic plants may be better at adapting and looking after themselves because they are so used to being in the wild more then domestic plants. But the tables can turn both ways. Domestic plants can become wild plants if neglected to look after themselves.

I don't think this thread can ever be successfully concluded. It's like trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.