Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pteridophytes

This page 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

Pteridophytes (inactive)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pteridophytes, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PteridophytesWikipedia:WikiProject PteridophytesTemplate:WikiProject PteridophytesPteridophytes articles

Osmundopsida

I propose considering the osmundoid clade as a class, Osmundopsida, within the division Pteridophyta. These ferns are intermediate between the leptosporangiate and eusporangiate ferns, and clearly have an ancient fossil history, and have sori that are distinctively different from all the leptosporangiate ferns. Cladistically, I feel that the split is ancient enough and the differences are sufficient to place it in its own class. jaknouse (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article at Osmundaceae (which places this family as the only family in the order Osmundales). And I'm not aware of any disagreement about whether this order was the first to diverge from the leptosporangiate ferns. So why ask for trouble in terms of what rank to give it? The only google scholar search hit for Osmundopsida is the Smith 2006 paper, which mentions it but does not adopt it. Kingdon (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We usually try to use the most popular or the most well-supported taxonomy from the literature. Therefore it's irrelevant if you think that "the split is ancient enough... to place it in its own class" unless that's the consensus from the literature. I'd also recommend not starting this WikiProject until you know there are others interesting in assisting you. WikiProjects are a place for people to gather and collaborate. Like you and ferns, we have a single dedicated editor who works on bryophytes, but he has not started his own project for lack of support. See WP:PROJGUIDE for more. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started this project BECAUSE I assumed that there would be others interested in collaborating, and I preferred to collaborate. In any case, there is nothing original about accepting Osmundopsida. Here's the legitimate citation for it:

Osmundopsida Doweld, Tent. Syst. Pl. Vasc.: ix. 23 Dec 2001. Described in Latin. – T: Osmunda L. (1753). – Osmundaceae

jaknouse (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The typical route to WikiProject creation is usually to propose it first (described at WP:PROJGUIDE), gain support for it (5-10 users), then create. And I wasn't suggesting it wasn't a legitimate name to use, I was cautioning against original research, e.g. adopting a particular taxonomy because of characteristics you cite and because you prefer the arrangement and not because that's the consensus reflected by the most well-supported data from the literature. That's all. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master Cladogram

Here is the master cladogram for the monilophytes, based on the 2007 work by Schuettpelz & Pryer, which goes into considerably more detail than earlier work. It is mostly consistent with the Smith system, but is modified to more clearly show the cladistics. All names can be cited with legitimate references.jaknouse (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name Ophioglossopsida actually has priority (1874) over Psilotopsida (1909).jaknouse (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names above the rank of family are not subject to priority, so an earlier date means nothing in this case. Either name may be used with equal validity, and the published sources use Psilotopsida for the broader group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also produce cladograms with {{cladogram}}, if you weren't aware. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What is the meaning of "using family for species in very small genera"? This phrase definitely needs to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.252 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New initiative

Hoping to generate some new activity in this WikiProject, I've created a new section, the WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. Since I, and the present members of the project, seem to be based more or less out of that region, I thought that the Peterson Guide to northeastern and central North American ferns would make a logical starting point.

I've also created a companion page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pteridophytes/Resources, to allow cut-and-pasting of properly formatted citations to some of the works I think will be most helpful. For writing a generic article within the scope of the initiative, the most useful works will probably be the Peterson Guide itself, Lellinger, and Hoshizaki & Moran, which has short descriptions but often adds information about cultivation, as well as various national and regional flora. (The portion of Flora of North America covering pteridophytes is entirely online. Gleason & Cronquist, Rhoads & Block's Flora of Pennsylvania, Haines & Farnsworth's Flora Novae-Angliae and Weakley's Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States are relatively recent and useful in assembling descriptions of species and distinguishing them from similar ones in different regions.

I know that many editors, such as myself, who were previously very active on Wikipedia tend to edit in a much more off-and-on fashion nowadays. Therefore, we have to be able to effectively collaborate while working asynchronously. If you have a useful reference but don't have time to cast it into article text, leave it on the talk page. Do the same if you know the article has an issue that needs addressing but that you don't have the time or references to fix properly. Even if it doesn't get fixed right away, the fact that you've provided that information will make it easier than if you pass it by without comment. Choess (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I own copies of most of the southeastern US fern floras: AR, GA (x2), KY, LA, MO, TN. If someone needs specific information from one of those volumes, I'd be able to pull a copy off the shelf next to me to look it up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest

A discussion of interest to the project is taking place here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Pteridophyte_classification Choess (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]