Talk:Gymnosperm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hsp.miller, Flashinglights456. Peer reviewers: Nswizzle64.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scientific name for gymnosperm?[edit]

The question is not a simple one because by "scientific name" you imply something about the classification of the species included in the group, which in this case, has undergone considerable revision in recent decades. If you are happy with just a "name" as used by scientists to indicate the group "gymnosperms" then Gymnospermae might do, although because Class Gymnospermae is not used anymore, it is really better to just use "gymnosperms" to generally refer to those plants under the scientific terms listed at the bottom of the article - Marshman 19:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Name[edit]

There is not really such a thing as a "gymnosperm". There is a name "gymnosperms", Gymnospermae for a group of plants. As this name is widely used and is found throughout the literature there should be an entry on it and the name itself is a convenience. For the entry the name "gymnosperms" would be more accurate than "gymnosperm".

A note as to the above comment: the scientific name is Gymnospermae (a name that can be used at any rank above that of family). This is straightforward. Also straightforward is what belongs to the group. The complicated issue is the nature of this group, which is of uncertain affinity, quite possibly paraphyletic (or worse). Brya 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the commentor is correct however: gymnosperms (the subject of this article) is what the article name should be - Marshman 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) says "in general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English". Gdr 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that policy is being misapplied or is as written short-sighted, or at least should have the caveat that the plural is appropriate where the article is, in fact, about the plural and not the singular. This is a good example. While gymnosperm is the correct dictionary term, the article is not about "a gymnosperm" or "the gymnosperm", but the gymnosperms - Marshman 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same about almost all articles. Dinosaur is about the dinosaurs, mammal is about the mammals, and so on. Gdr 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; in that sense they are all dictionary terms and not encyclopedia article names. But one could read the policy this way: "...unless that term is always in a plural form in English" means, if you are talking about dinosaurs, then that is the the way the term is always (corrctly) used; "The dinosaur lived millions of years ago" would be incorrect English. - Marshman 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox[edit]

Why is there a taxobox on this page if gymnosperms are no longer an individual taxon? SCHZMO ✍ 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a fair degree of uncertainty - they may be a natural monophyletic taxon, after all - MPF 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kubitzki system[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable describe the relevance of the Kubitzki system here (in the article)? Thanks very much. --Eleassar my talk 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnoperms[edit]

Does the gymnosperms have flowers?00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)devinewords

No, by definition, a gymnosperm is not a flowering plant. Beat Buddha (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name[edit]

Why does this article not use Gymnospermae as its title in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)? If the reader is familiar with "gymnosperm," "Gymnospermae" is not a long logical leap. Whether or not the gymnosperms are monophyletic, I find the Latin far more preferable, and it seems better to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Those for or against moving this article to Gymnospermae please respond below. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: if anyone claims that using the Latin name somehow makes a group monophyletic, then why are Latin names like Charales, Protista, and Pteridospermatophyta still in common use? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC


gymnosperms plants produce 'nake' seeds are not enclosed in an ovary; rather these seeds are enclosed in woody structures called cones or strobili.

Expand[edit]

I placed the Expand template {{expand}} on the article because this is not a large article and should be expanded if possible.Etineskid (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sense[edit]

The last sentence of the introduction has been hacked up. It no longer makes sense. - Parsa (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gymnosperm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics section[edit]

For ths section maybe try and find some more information just to explain the genome a little bit better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoleary87 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classification section[edit]

This section is really good and informative. At the end of the section maybe provide an example to show the reader how a final classification and gymnosperm would be names/classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoleary87 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gymnosperm. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name revisited - Acrogymnospermae[edit]

There have been quetions on this talk page since 2005 over the latin name of this clade. I've found a source that could be useful on this:

Acrogymnospermae P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue, new clade name. Comments on name. — There is no preexisting scientific name for the clade that includes all extant gymnosperms. Gymnospermae is not an appropriate name for this crown clade because this name is widely understood to apply to a paraphyletic group (when fossil taxa are included, as they generally are) that originated from a different ancestor—the immediate ancestor of /Apo-Spermatophyta. “Acro-” means top, summit or peak (Brown, 1956)

— Cantino et al[1]

It think this is probably the most appropriate nomenclature to use here. The page name should remain "Gymnosperm" per WP:COMMONNAME (and the Angiospermae are currently titled as Flowering plants). However, the Acrogymnospermae name is definitely worth a prominent mention. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ D., Cantino, Philip; A., Doyle, James; W., Graham, Sean; S., Judd, Walter; G., Olmstead, Richard; E., Soltis, Douglas; S., Soltis, Pamela; J., Donoghue, Michael. "Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta". www.ingentaconnect.com. Retrieved 2018-10-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This is way out of date - see Pinales. It is never a good idea to use the term "current" in an encyclopaedia! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of “Gymnosperm”[edit]

Hi there,

I love to fix minuscule page problems that don’t really matter, but I don’t know the first thing about how go about fixing the broken syntax in the very first sentence to properly produce an audio pronunciation according to Wikipedia’s pronunciation template standards. My eyes always just automatically skip over these pronunciation guides so I don’t even know what they’re supposed to look like, nor how to edit them. This one is an eyesore that appears to be telling readers that the word gymnospore is pronounced “Greece” haha. Dynen (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gymnospore" doesn't even appear in the article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification terminology[edit]

In the classification section, I believe there is some confusion between classification schemes. The link for Order Pinales directs you to the wikipedia page with the same name, but meant in the sense of all conifers. On this page, the word "Pinales" was only used as a placeholder order containing the pine family and excluding other conifers. I don't know if there is a more correct page to link to, given the competing systems, but as it stands, it leads to confusion. 81.111.196.52 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gymnosperm&oldid=1194455729"