|Lycopodiophyta has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Plants||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Merge Phylum lycophyta?
The article contains only two items not already here (the number of extant species and the age of the group), and neither is referenced (although both may very well be correct). I believe that there is nothing to merge, and that Phylum lycophyta should be deleted.—Curtis Clark 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see that this was done. However, there is a problem. In the Kenrick & Crane 1997 classification, Lycophytina includes Lycopsida plus other groups, but both re-direct here. This difference needs to be recognized and sorted out. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Were there water Lycopodiophyta?
The sentence "The Lycopodiophyta are [sic] one of several classes of plants that expanded onto land during the Silurian and Devonian periods" implies that they existed as a marine, or freshwater, class before this expansion. Is there any evidence for this? "The earliest identifable Lycopodiophyta", mentioned in the previous paragraph, were land plants. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "are" is actually correct, since "-phyta" is plural ("phyton" is the singlular), but the rest of the statement is misleading. I'll fix it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- After looking at it a while, the damage extends to the following paragraph, where it mixes traits of land plants with traits of vascular plants, none of them unique to the Lycopodiophyta. I wonder whether it wasn't plagiarized from a 1960s-vintage textbook. I'll take a stab at it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Although rendered in quotes, it is incorrect to call an organism primitive. (Primitive refers to characters, not organisms.) This should be fixed. I will fix it if no one objects.Michaplot (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)