Talk:Amborella

Plants Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

why don't we say its in the division "amborellophyta", class "amborellopsida",order "amborales", family "amborellaceae". its not pointlessly redundant, just good fun with suffixes.

It's not the type genus for the magnoliophyta. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

This article ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08flower.html?_r=2&8dpc ) says some of the same things as in the Wiki article, and might make a good reference? I'm not sure if NYT articles still go offline after a few weeks, though, for non-members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.178 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I vote no. The pages are different enough in content. Nessie (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it may be worth having two articles, but at present there's un-necessary duplication between the two. I would suggest that the phylogeny is discussed under the family and the plant described under the genus. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general that's the division we like, genus and species articles focus on the observable characteristics of the taxon at hand, family and up focus on phylogeny and the current state of the systematics debate. A little redundancy is inevitable, for the sake of good composition, but one article can have a sentence and link to the other for the paragraph or section that goes into more depth. Stan (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems very reasonable to me. Nessie (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, that kind of topical separation doesn't apply to a group that's monotypic, only to larger groups with more taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. We usually do not have multiple articles for monotypic taxa. If we want to have a separate article on the phylogeny of Amborella, then that should be the title. Calling the phylogeny article by the family name is misleading and unhelpful. However, there is not enough information between the two article to warrant such a separation, so I support merging the existing content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional casual reader of such articles, I like having separate articles for taxa even when they're monotypic. As I'm browsing the families in an order, it's disconcerting to get bumped down to the species level. On the other hand, there's something to be said for being consistent about it either way. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to genus article According to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (Ranks) -"when a taxon contains only a single member, both taxon and member are usually treated in a single article" and "If a family contains only one genus, the article is still named after the genus, as, generally speaking, genus names are more familiar and receive more usage than family names" Melburnian (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to genus article Although in April 2010 I was rather against the merge, I'm now in favour, having done more editing myself. Although more short articles may be easier for readers, what happens in practice if you have separate articles which could reasonably be merged is that (a) information is duplicated between them (b) this information is then edited and updated separately and becomes increasingly inconsistent. So wherever it is in line with policy and consensus, I am now in favour of mergers. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article can easily accommodate the phylogeny info from Amborellaceae. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Melburnian. I've been wanting to merge this for years, but never got around to proposing it. Kingdon (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks the vessels?

The article says "Its wood lacks the vessels characteristic of most flowering plants." I assume that the plant still transports water from root to leaf; what does the plant use in place of vessels?