Talk:Gnetum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leilany Melenciano. Peer reviewers: ShaniaS246.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Is there any known history about Gnetum classification?--Hannu 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Gnetales redirects here, and the article states that Gnetum is the sole genus included in Gnetales, but at least some classifications consider Gnetales to include Ephedra and Welwitschia. No time to deal with it right now. MrDarwin 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still an issue

This is the quote from Wikipedia's article on Welwitschia:
"Most recent systems place Welwitschia mirabilis in its own family Welwitschiaceae in the gymnosperm order Gnetales.[8]"
But I'm not enough of a botanist to edit this article. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy update

Updated the taxonomy per Price, R. A. (1996). Systematics of the Gnetales: A review of morphological and molecular evidence. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 157(6): S40-S49. Two species included in the previous list but not included in Price's treatment are Gnetum catasphaericum and Gnetum giganteum. And of course there is the 2000 proposal to move many of these species to the older genus Thoa. Doesn't seem to have gained any traction, however. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukazi" and "Okazi"

Okazi redirects to Gnetum africanum. Ukazi redirects here. I'm assuming these are common names; but no mention of these names are made in the respective articles. What's going on here? Eman 235/talk 05:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section Gnetum sect. Cylindrostachys and messed up classification

Dear colleagues, it seem that User:RhinoMind introduced with the last standing edit from 30th july 2019 additional sect. Cylindrostachys, and that is consistent with classification on Wikispecies. However the previous division and classification is left unaltered. By that he did create many double entries ... where some (most species) are listed in both the previous classification order and wikispecies-like classification.

I am not up to the task to find out or decide, which classification is to be used, so I'd like to atract attention of someone who can clean it up. --Reo On (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for notifying me on my TalkPage. For my part it was a quick "drive-by" add. I was working with Gnetum in relation to some ecoregion pages (I think) and couldn't make sense of things from this page. I consulted Wikispecies and just added from that. I can see there are overlaps, and as you seem to suggest, it might come down to some mess in the scientific classification, that is somehow out of order? I am not that knowledgable about Gnetum, so I can't tell. Just change things as you sees fit, given that you know about this subject of course. RhinoMind (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthetic capacities

Information about the reduced photosynthetic capabilities and missing genes of Gnetum should probably be added to the pages for conifers, gnetophytes, Welwitschias, and Ephedras. All conifers and gnetophytes seem to share this trait. Eden the plant nerd (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]