Talk:Equisetidae

The contents of a page then titled "Equisetidae" were merged into this page before the two page titles were swapped. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged page, please see its history. 28 October 2019

Strobilus

Parts of this plant are edible after being boiled or steamed. They supposedly taste good with soy sauce & eaten as an emergency food by campers in Japan. The young shoots as they appear above ground, stripped of their outer cortex may be eaten raw. THey have a sweetish taste.[Ref: Fifty Edible Plants of British Columbia - Equisetum species]

Parts of which plant? Equisetopsida is an entire class of plants, not a particular kind. It includes several fossil genera, and I can't imagine eating a boiled fossil. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing, just guessing, the user is discussing the one extant genus. Yes, horsetails have many human uses, although I didn't know they were eaten. Check out the article on the genus, where this information would be most appropriate. Thanks for providing a source, also. You can paste your comment on the talk page to the Equisetum article, and either you or someone else can add it there as appropriate. --Blechnic (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But which species? The species that I'm most familiar with produce tiny strobili and could not possibly serve as emergency food. When dealing with edible plants, the species name(s) are critical because some plants are toxic. The information should then be placed on the article about that species, and possibly on the page for Equisetum as well. Edibility is not a property of the class as a whole, or even of the majority of members, and so does not belong in this article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, which is why I've suggested the author of the above message place a message on the Equisetum page, a more inclusive and less dismissive suggestion that could lead to assistance with referencing and including the information, if appropriate, in the correct article. And in gaining a Wikipedia editor to articles on edible plants, ethnobotany, or Equisetum. --Blechnic (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horsetail

There is a product by Tadin Tea called "Cola De Caballo (Shave grass)"... is "Shave grass" Horsetail (AKA Equiesetopsida)? Is "Cola De Caballo" Horsetail? If so should Shave grass redirect here? Should Cola de Caballo have a disambiguation link at the top? Antmusic (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equisetopsida is a class of plants, including many living and fossil species, so "Shave grass" cannot be the same as this entire group of plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing article/paragraph

This article begins with "Equisetopsida, or Sphenopsida is a class of plants."

Then in the section on "Systematics" the first paragraph discusses the higher order relationships among Equisetopsida and other seedless vascular plants, then says that because of this the rank assigned varies from "order to division," then moves on to a discussion of recognizing it as a "division" then class "class." Where's the order? It should obviously say from "class to division," or rather "division to class" because the lead in is from why it isn't accepted as a division cleany among taxonomists. And it is needed to include a discussion of its classification as an order rather than class or division, or it should say class or division and include a discussion of why it's either a class or division and not an order, if that is the case. In addition when something this all over the place is reported it should be well and precisely sourced and reported in an orderly manner. It is classed as a division by these folks for this reason, it is classed as an order by these folks for these reasons, it is classed as a class by these folks, and by Wikipedia for these assorted reasons. Also the reasoning between the first two paragraphs should be clearly articulated, because scientists aren't sure it should be a separate order, there are well-supported high level taxonomies that don't call it an order, blah blah.... Dates should be included if this is a function of change in molecular systematics, or if there are specific changes due to molecular systematics that are not well-accepted this should be mentioned.

The paragraph as it now stands should be eliminated or drastically reduced to remove the confusion from introducing it as a discussion of one thing, while it is a discussion of something else, only the latter reflecting the system used in this particular article. As usual, I can't tag it because I'll be permanently banned from Wikipedia for tagging an inaccuracy in an article, so I usually just let them stand, but this is, even for Wikipedia, a bit over the top.

--Blechnic (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, but will reply to what I understand your concerns to be. First, in some alternative classifications, the same group being discussed in the article is given a higher or lower rank, or another name. It is the current classification that is in a state of flux. There are many different systems currently in use, and Wikipedia has simply chosen one of them. The botanical community does not yet favor one name or one classification over any others. That fact should be presented in the article, and not deleted as you propose. Second, the paragraph as it now stands has citations, and is concise and cleanly written. It is not complete, because it is a work in progress. If you look at the edit history, the text you are fretting over was added less than 24 hours ago. Your intense concern is thus touching, but highly premature. The section in question will be undergoing further revision and expansion over the next few weeks. Third, if there is an "inaccuracy" in the article, please state what you think it is. You've mentioned that word, but have identified no inaccuracies. Finally, if you are in danger of being permanently banned, then perhaps you should re-examine the way that you go about your work on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "fretting," nor is my concern "intense," please discuss the article as I have above, rather than speculating about me personally, it's weird and inappropriate.

However, I do appreciate that ownership issues are danger signs with Wikipedia articles and editors who go personal rather than substantive, so I'm out of here. It's all yours.

Ancient

There has been some edit warring over whether to describe this class as "ancient" or "primordial" (see User talk:EncycloPetey#Cooperative venture and edits in the vicinity of [1]). Although I agree with EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) that the mere addition of one of those words doesn't really describe the issue adequately, I'm sure a look through a variety of sources would show that many people would use some adjective along these lines for this class. They mean several things: (1) the plant appeared before others (this seems to largely be true, as even the advocates of a paleozoic origin for the flowering plants don't seem to put them as far back as the Devonian, as far as I know), (2) the class has many more fossil representatives than living ones (also true), (3) the living representatives are closely related to old fossils (I guess so, not sure I know enough to say), (4) the group is basal (more closely related to the common ancestor) rather than specialized (has evolved further from the common ancestor), which is a bit of a can of worms and probably not especially true of this class especially without more explanation of basal relative to what. So what would be a good wording? Something like "with an extensive fossil record" or "with a fossil record going back to the Devonian" strikes me as good text for the lead. In general, the lead could be expanded, per WP:LEAD. Kingdon (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ("with a fossil record going back to the Devonian) sounds like a good approach; it uses specific verifiable facts. However, I wouldn't recommend investing a lot of effort into expanding the lead paragraph yet. It should be a summary of the article, and I expect to have time next week to finally add a lot of the information that ought to be in the article, but isn't yet. The article needs a lot more explanation about its fossil record, origins, evolutionary relationships, ecology, and nomenclature. The morphology section also needs many changes since it describes primarily the morphology of the Equisetales rather than the class as a whole. Once that information is in (even if it hasn't been thoroughly polished), an expansion and reworking of the introduction would be both easier to write and more meaningful to the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "ancient" are problematic. Sure, they're used a lot in popular writing, but as Kingdon explained, they aren't really appropriate here. I would recommend these two columns by T. Ryan Gregory. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on WP:Plants. The correct terms are "basal" and "derived," as what you are discussing is evolutionary relationships among plant lineages and the times of divergences, and these words give the correct sense of the fact that the plants have been evolving since, rather than the static evolutionary sense of "ancient" or "primordial." Ancient implies a fossil lineage, while primordial implies early prokaryote or even pre-prokaryote. This conversation about this word in this article should have been going on on the talk page of the article, rather than on a user talk page. There seems to be confusion, though, about article talk pages, whether to discuss other users here or even the article here rather than elsewhere. Even I can figure this one out: discuss the article on its talk page, discuss word changes, content issues, on the article's talk page, discuss users on their talk pages, or, preferably, not at all. This makes for ease of community editing the article, and for ease of making sure it's not personal. It may interfere with article ownership, but that's probably the only issue, and it should be a nonstarter. I'm certain this opinion, based on current practices in the sciences will be ignored, though, in favor of discussing me personally or attacking me. --Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key problem with "basal" and "derived" is that neither term can be used in this article in the desired location where "ancient" has been used. The term "basal" says that a group branches from other taxa near the "bottom" end of a fully sampled cladogram. The Equisetopsida do not branch off at the bottom of the phylogeny of Plants (see the cladogram on the Plant article). Likewise, calling the group "derived" says nothing about its position or relationships. A group can be "derived" because it is highly autapomorphic, or it can be "derived" because it is far from the base of a cladogram. How far is "far"? It's entriely up to the whim of the author.

Worse, both terms are highly sensitive to changes in meaning depending upon the inclusiveness of the outgroup and ingroup. The meaning of both terms is still hotly debated among cladists even today. About 10 years ago, I sat in a discussion among top professional cladists in plant systematics, and the discussion completely broke down at the point where "basal" and "derived" came up as descriptors. These terms are used in the literature, yes, but their meaning and significance has not been agreed upon or applied consistently by various authors.

Most importantly, both terms are entirely relative. A clade may be basal in one cladogram, but the same group may be derived in another cladogram. In a cladogram whose sampling consists of a chimpanzee and a selection of echinoderms, the chimpanzee will be basal. If the sampling is extended to include some mollusks, spiders, jellyfish, and sponges, the chimpanzee will now be "derived". Thus, a taxon can only be "basal" or "derived" with respect to a particular sampling scheme, and both terms become meaningless when the sampling context is not explicit. This is a key point in one of the articles linked by Guettarda. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not entirely up to the whim of the author, and all of these terms require context. Ancient without context does not have more precise meaning than basal. Your argument against "derived" is the point of using derived; although autapomorphic is generally used with a characteristic, not with a taxon.

These terms are no more or less sensitive to changes in meaning within the botanical community than terms which have no technical meaning within the botanical community, so your argument there is hard to follow. Almost everything is still (your term, I can't remember a break) hotly debated among phylogenetic systematists, it's a hot field right now. Your "personal experience" among unnamed "top professional cladists" does not work on Wikipedia, which requires that original research not be the basis of decisions.

The meaning of these terms is better defined in the literature than many other terms used on Wikipedia and in other encyclopedias and within the literature itself. "Ancient" doesn't show any better agreement in the literature because it's a lay term.

Evolutionary botany is relative, all cladograms are relative and within their context. I'm not sure what Wikipedia calls a cladogram, though, so this may be a major point of confusion, exactly what a cladogram is.

Your argument for not using these terms appears to be that 10 years ago you sat around and listened to a bunch of cladists casually discuss a term, and this has highly swayed you not to use these terms. See above, about OR--this being one of the major problems with OR from those not in on the discussion, but outsiders. Did they publish a paper with their discussion? I also sit around and listen to world famous botanists, including one unnamed one in an area where you edit a lot, and he uses "basal" and "derived." Does this top your listening to a group? Huh? --Blechnic (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:OR is a policy concerning published article content. It does not restrict the scope of discussion on an article's talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede you know more about the topic, though, so we can save all that. --Blechnic (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try not to take your frustrations out on each other! As EncycloPetey has said, the lead should reflect the content of the article. I suspect that the time spent discussing the best word to use in a lead that is about to be changed could probably be spent a lot more helpfully expanding this or similar articles.

For what it's worth, the terms "basal" and "derived" are only meaningful when applied to characters, because clades are all equally basal, or derived, if you look back far enough. And as for the Equisetopsids, the jury is still out on whether they are a "derived" group of ferns, as suggested by most molecular evidence, or a separate, more "basal" clade altogether, as some morphologists still hold.

As far as my two cents go, I think it's best to keep things factual - if a single word can cause confusion when read by different groups, let's opt for a less ambiguous wording which spells out what we mean - such as "first appearing in the fossil record in the Devonian". "Ancient", "basal" and so on are all open to interpretation. Whatever word you opt for, I'm sure the article will be expanded sufficiently to justify and clarify its use, which will provide the real benefit to readers.

Smith609 Talk 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all clades are equally basal if you go back far enough, that's what's meant by context is required--the words do have meaning, and, no they are not only meaningful when applied to characters, they are meaningful in light of their application to taxa with studied characteristics. You say much the same in your last sentence using these words applied to taxa after saying they have no meaning. This is a strange conversation, I think, because we are all on such different levels of knowledge, so I will bow out. At some point, though, Wikipedia has to use the research of experts in the field, not the pronouncements from those who have at one point in ancient times allied themselves with one group of experts or another. What this article says generally is a long way from the current state of the topic in the field of evolutionary botany, and you are using words incorrectly. --Blechnic (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me - the perils of writing late at night when I should be asleep! You are, of course, entirely correct - organisms or clades can be basal within a larger clade. But by that reasoning, if we accept that they are ferns (which I think pretty much everybody does now), my understanding is that they are pretty (morphologically) derived, with secondarily reduced leaves, intercalary growth, etc. - as I understand it, the ancestral fern is usually reconstructed as loosely similar to modern bracken, but I'm wary that that statement may be another spectacular display of my unfamiliarity with this topic! Their cladistic position in the fern clade is not basal either, because the Psilotopsida branched first (according to Smith 2006). If I'm right, that would make me reluctant to call them basal ferns, let alone basal plants.

Apologies again for yesterday's ignorant comment. I hope it doesn't discourage you from contributing to this discussion!

Smith609 Talk 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept lack of sleep. But you can see how I got hopelessly perplexed by what was going on here? Yes, it's tricky with the equisetopsida, particularly when you start talking about their leaves, something most interesting, derived primitive comes to mind. This, in my opinion, is what makes it improper, though, to call them ancient or anything outside of the context of specifically discussing characteristics of the taxa in light of their evolutionary history, which leads us back, again, in my opinion, to the only possibly solution, sticking strictly with derived and basal, in a particular context, as the words are now commonly used (if not so commonly used 10 years ago in the same manner). They are not words that cannot be directly explained to a lay person then used in their proper context, and I believe this would make for a much clearer way to state the evolutionary history and relationships of these plants in a way that both enlightens the lay reader and introduces the reader to the difficulties scientists have dealt with in understanding these plants. Well, are they ferns? Well, yeah, in all probability, and this is why we think so, and this is why so many were confused for so long. It all falls out with the correct definitions and explanations, but it gets tangles and garbled otherwise. At least consider this as a solution. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as a cladist from ten years ago (or even from 20; I'm "ancient"), an outgroup to a specified clade is basal to that clade. That is the only precise meaning of "basal", and the word was misused as often a decade ago as it is now. In contrast to what someone said above, "basal" can only logically apply to clades, never to characters.

"Derived", on the other hand, applies to character states, so it is in no logical sense an opposite of "basal". A character state is derived relative to another, ancestral, character state. As mentioned, this is relative; five fingers is ancestral in the tetrapods, but derived in the vertebrates. I suppose one could say that a "derived clade" is marked by a derived character state, but that's true of all clades; they're called synapomorphies.

The problem with "ancient" is its imprecision; it is certainly not false to apply it to the Equisetopsida, only imprecise. I concur (seemingly with everyone else in this thread) with its removal.

I don't think anyone mentioned "primitive" and "advanced", which is a good thing. These terms have multiple value-laden meanings in ordinary English, to the extent that their use in evolutionary biology always brings a subtle POV. Even if the author doesn't intend a POV, it is almost certain that some of the readers will infer one.

I agree that specifying the age of the clade by reference to its fossil record is the best replacement for "ancient".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very helpful summary, Curtis. You clearly have a gift - that's the clearest explanation I ever remember receiving for those terms, and I've heard (and jumbled!) a few! I wonder whether you'd mind taking a look at Basal (phylogeny) and Derived, which I've cobbled together in what I hope is an accurate fashion. Looking back over them, my attempts are frankly lacking in pizzaz (to say the least), but hopefully more accurate than what was there before. Given my track record above, I think it would be very useful if someone double checked! Someone with more of a way with words than me would do well to tidy the prose a lot, too.

As another point, I seem to recall that "primitive" is the opposite of derived. Is there an alternative to this horribly loaded term?

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go for this in general with how the words are used by botanists today. The problem is the discussion here appears to be a pissing match rather than an attempt to try to get some accuracy--which makes discussion of context confusing. It's always confusing on Wikipedia how much hostility discussions generate, so I'm trying to come prepared with plenty up front to not be suprised. But it doesn't work, and I get taken aback by the way conversations move.

I think that using basal and derived will work for this particular article, rather than trying to overall discuss the absolute age of the taxon with a single adjective. I've seen derived used for clades rather than just for character traits. However, in this article basal for the clade, in describing its specific relationship to other clades, and a discussion of derived traits present in members would work, imo, very well. In particular, this would, clarify the history of the study of the Equisetopsida in botany and paleobotany. --Blechnic (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but there's the rub. Is it basal to ((ophioglossids+psilophytes)(marattiophytes+leptopsporangiates)), to (marattiophytes+leptopsporangiates), or just to leptosporangiates? I'm not up with the recent literature, but my sense is that different characters support different trees.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's generally the problem with this particular taxon, which is the reason for my supporting the introduction of technical terms. I think a lot of Wikipedia articles are needlessly technical for what they are attempting to explain. In this case, I can't see an easy way about it, particularly when you have to start with the most basics of morphology and start explaining that the "primitive" is actually derived and what this tells us about the plant and its evolutionary relationships. But I really think that working on it could lead to an excellent article that introduced the audience to the taxon in its evolutionary sense, the importance, and interesting and confusing aspect of its extinct members, and the modern day species. There are easier ways to do it with other plant clades having extensive fossil records, but this one also deserves a history of its treatment by botanists. --Blechnic (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I was right about "can of worms" ;-). Anyway, I've put in the "with a fossil record going back to the Devonian" wording. Feel free to revise or elaborate (or propose alternate wording). Kingdon (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a geologist, there's no way I'd change that one. --Blechnic (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the one initially urging some improvements in this case, I am pleased to see discussion. My concerns have already been touched on, and I think the current phrasing is reasonable (FWIW). I would add that currently horsetail redirects to Equisetopsida while horsetails (plural) redirects to Equisetum (as does scouring rush). It would seem to me (allowing for what I cannot anticipate) that these should both redirect to the same article, but I defer on which that would be. I do think that whichever article they redirect to should be prioritized for wording that introduces the layman. ENeville (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed horsetail to redirect to Equisetum. I would guess horsetail is sometimes used in either sense, but most people who look for horsetail are likely to be looking for the living species, I would think. Kingdon (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Claim

The views expressed all but the first sentence of the last paragraph are unsupported by any reference and appear to be merely opinion. If they aren't supported in this way, I think they should be removed. --Peter (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone finds a reference, there would be an WP:UNDUE problem the way they are presented now. Just deleting them looks fine to me. Kingdon (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equisetopsida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]