protoderm and procambium

[Anuradha Pujar]

 Dr Alison,
 Thank you for  your feedback, the terms protoderm and procambium should
be placed under apical meristem as you have pointed out, and it will be
done. The term 'meristem' in POC is  generic and is not 'ground
meristem'.

Anuradha

> I received, another feedback from Alison Roberts, which was not copied
> to po-dev list. Here it is.
>
> -Pankaj
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Feedback Submission from Plant Ontology Live Site
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:41:37 -0400
> From: Alison Roberts <aroberts at uri.edu>
> To: Pankaj Jaiswal <pj37 at cornell.edu>
> References: <200408311610.i7VGAnSr012557 at brie4.cshl.org>
> <4134C6D4.7010004 at cornell.edu>
>
> Dear Pankaj,
>
> Thank you for your reply. This may be another thing to think about...
> "Procambium" is listed a part of an apical meristem in POC, whereas
> "protoderm" is listed as part of a meristem. As I understand these terms,
> they should both have the same relationship to the same parent term. As
> for
> what that parent and relationship should be? Procambium and protoderm are
> sometimes considered part of the "apical meristematic region", but usually
> NOT part of the "apical meristem" proper. They fit the definition of
> "meristems" in their own right, so to me it would be preferable to list
> them as types of meristems that develop from an apical meristem (root or
> shoot). I suppose "ground meristem" should be made obsolete like "ground
> tissue".
>
> Regards,
> Alison Roberts
>
>
>