Talk:Euphyllophyte

Completely wrong

The "facts" cited on this page are not supported by the cited source. Smith et al do not treat any taxa above the level of class. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming

The page is called "Euphyllophytina", but the first sentence states that this is a synonym of the term "euphyllophytes", but that is an anglicisation of Euphyllophyta, not of Euphyllophytina. The sentence reads: "Euphyllophytina, the euphyllophytes, is a taxon – sometimes unranked, sometimes placed at the rank of subdivision – within the tracheophytes."

Euphyllophytina, although not an automatically typified name (based on a genus name) as per the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (article 16) was historically a subdivision name and follows the form of a subdivision name, with the ending -phytina.

I would like to rename this page to Euphyllophytes because I think confusion is reduced by respecting the form of division and subdivision names even when, as in this case, the Code does not yet require names at these ranks to be based on a genus name. The first sentence could then become "The euphyllophytes are a taxon within the tracheophytes – sometimes unranked (Euphyllophytes or Euphyllophytina), historically placed at the rank of division (Euphyllophyta), sometimes placed at the rank of subdivision (Euphyllophytina).".

There are more issues to be sorted out here, such as whether Euphyllophytina Kenrick & Crane, 1997 is nom. inval. as stated by ZipcodeZoo; who is the authority for the name Euphyllophyta; and we need a complete, sourced, list of synonyms. I think, though, that the proposed renaming would be a step towards comprehensibility. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again has been on a "to do" list of mine for ages. There are several issues to be considered:

Is there agreement, within the usual limits, on the circumscription of the taxon covered in the article?
Is there agreement on the position of the taxon in a phylogeny?
If the answers to (1) and (2) are "yes", what rank is implied or used in reliable sources?

The answers to (1) and (2) do both seem to be "yes", at least as far as extant plants are concerned; there are fringe disagreements over some fossil taxa. The answer to (3) is that there's absolutely no agreement that I can see. Some sources attempt to use Linnean ranks, but then put traditional divisions at very much lower ranks; others use clade names. In the majority of plant taxoboxes we use no formal ranks between order and regnum=Plantae.

So I think the best approach would indeed be to rename this page "Euphyllophytes", and start by saying that this is a clade, treated at different ranks under different names by different authors.

A minor issue is whether to use the singular or the plural; Polysporangiophyte, Embryophyte, Spermatophyte, etc. suggest the singular.

So I'll make the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euphyllophyte. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226232147/http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf to http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf

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) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]