All corrections
Wikipedia June 29, 2026 at 12:22 AM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf

4 corrections found

1
Claim
Bambusa arundinacea = B. bambos (Aracaceae)
Correction

Bambusa bambos is not in Aracaceae. Bamboo is a grass, and Kew lists Bambusa bambos in the family Poaceae.

Full reasoning

This example assigns Bambusa bambos to the wrong family. Bambusa bambos is a bamboo, and bamboos are grasses in the family Poaceae, not "Aracaceae."

Kew's Plants of the World Online lists Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss in Poaceae. Kew also lists the genus Bambusa in Poaceae. So the family given in the article is incorrect.

2 sources
2
Claim
Borassus (Poaceae), fan palms
Correction

Borassus is not in Poaceae. Borassus is a genus of fan palms in the family Arecaceae.

Full reasoning

This example assigns Borassus to the grass family Poaceae, but Borassus is a palm genus.

Kew's Plants of the World Online lists Borassus in the family Arecaceae, and specifically describes it as a fan palm. So the article's family label is incorrect.

2 sources
3
Claim
prior to the appearance of angiosperms in the Triassic
Correction

This gives the wrong time for the first angiosperms. The earliest unequivocal angiosperm fossils are from the Early Cretaceous, not the Triassic.

Full reasoning

The article states that angiosperms appeared in the Triassic, but the mainstream fossil record does not place their first reliable appearance that early.

A major review in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B says that the earliest unequivocal remains of angiosperms are pollen grains from the Early Cretaceous. Another review in Nature Plants similarly states that there are no reliable records of angiosperms from pre-Cretaceous rocks.

There are debated molecular-clock estimates and controversial reports of possible Jurassic or older angiosperms, but those are not the same as a secure Triassic appearance. Presenting a Triassic appearance as fact is therefore misleading.

3 sources
4
Claim
It is covered with a waxy cuticle that is impermeable to liquid water and water vapor
Correction

Leaf cuticles reduce water loss, but they are not impermeable to water vapor. Water vapor can diffuse through the cuticle, which is why cuticular transpiration occurs.

Full reasoning

This statement overstates the barrier function of the plant cuticle. A leaf cuticle is a strong barrier to water loss, but it is not impermeable to water vapor.

Peer-reviewed studies explicitly describe water moving across the cuticle:

  • Boyer (2015) reports that when stomata close, the cuticle affects diffusion of both CO2 and water vapour, and the study measured movement of both gases through the cuticle.
  • Seufert et al. (2022) state that cuticular waxes form the main barrier to non-stomatal water loss and discuss measured cuticular water permeabilities.
  • Kane et al. (2020) further note that leaves lacking stomata can still lose water through the cuticle, which would be impossible if the cuticle were impermeable to water vapor.

So the accurate formulation is that the cuticle is water-resistant / limits transpiration, not that it is fully impermeable to water vapor.

3 sources
Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0