Botanists make this distinction too, but not in the same way you seem to be saying gardeners do. Inflorescences contain flowers. In fact a “sunflower” is actually an inflorescence. Each of the “petals” is really a specialized flower with five fused petals. And the middle part has lots of flowers that do the actual reproduction. Sunflower plants have infloresecences, but they also have flowers, which are part of the inflorescences. And they are, I imagine, insect-pollinated.
What would be the point of having flowers if they weren’t making seeds? That’s pretty much what flowers are for. (Note the defensive “pretty much”, motivated by bitter experience.)
Would the products of self-pollination really be genetically identical to the parent? If we’re really talking about self-pollination (as opposed to apomixis), this would only be true if the plant were already completely inbred. Some plants that almost always self-pollinate, such as arabidopsis, come close, but if violets also outcross a fair amount it wouldn’t be true.
“Flowering plants” (angiosperms) has a specific botanical meaning, distinguishing them from gymnosperms (pines, etc), ferns, and others.
Yes. All “flowers” in the composite family (daisys, dandelions, asters, sunflowers) are actually inflorescences. Most are insect-pollinated. And some composite “flowers” themselves are part of compound inflorescences.
I was guessing they spread their genetic material through flowering, but reproduced by budding out. I wasn’t aware that the bulbs were clones.
Self pollination would not result in a clone.
Pollination takes two parts, each with half of each chromosome pair. But all of the pollen parts (sperm gamete) are not the all same mix of chromosomes(one of each, but not the same ones in each bit o’ pollen) and all of the female gametes are likewise not the same. It’s a different mix up of the parent’s genes while a clone (bulb split) would be identical.
Yes, that’s what I was saying. But, I added, in a species that always self-pollinates there is complete inbreeding–the two chromosomes in each pair are identical, modulo very recent mutations–and the offspring are, in effect, clones of the mother. Some plant species come very close to this.
My wife planted about 100 daffodils two years ago. Between the squirrels and the moles, fewer than 30 of them came up the year after she planted them… but about 10 of those 30 came up in the middle of the lawn or in flower beds where we didn’t put them. This year, many of those wandering bulbs are coming up in twos and threes because they’ve split off. That may not be the world’s most efficient breeding strategy, but it’s enough to propagate the species.
Yes I know. So do most serious gardeners. But they tend to use the terms differently in everyday parlance. Colloquially, we refer to the showier ones, the ones lay people know as flowers, as flowers. But we tend to refer to the flowering parts of a grass, for example, as an inflorescence. It’s more a descriptive shortcut than a legitimate botanical distinction, of course, but as such it’s useful.