Talk:Aglaophyton

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxonomic gender

Actually, Aglaophyton majus since it is neutral. Uocila (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In taxonomic practice, Aglaophyton is treated as a masculine noun, despite the apparent neuter ending. All significant paleobotanical texts use Aglaophyton major as the name. If you believe this is an error, you would need to propose a nomenclatorial correction in a scientific journal such as Taxon. Wikipedia cannot publish original research, so we must follow the name used in the literature, even if we believe it contains an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a palaeobotanist as well and have some experience with the Code rules. Compounds on -phyton are the case of the article 62.2.c. The correction of adjective ending is not regarded by the Code as a nomenclatural change according to 32.7. If I have an occasion to mention Aglaophyton majus in a publication, I will do it in a grammatically correct form, of course.--Uocila (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is now an issue that can be added as a comment in the article, since papers by well-known palaeobotanists have now begun using majus, so I have added a reference to this. MisterCDE (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]