|Bryophyte 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, Top-importance)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Rlmurphy, Larissanaidoo. Assigned peer reviews: Jjlord, Jaoconnell.|
- What is lacking about the article? Further elaboration upon your comments would be helpful. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It needs information on water relations, pollution sensitivity, life cycle, and much much more. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No Taxobox here, please
The reason there is no Taxobox on this page is that this is not a taxon. There is no taxobox on Marine mammal or Ediacaran biota or the List of poisonous plants, because none of these pages describes a taxon. Likewise, the bryophytes are not a taxon, but merely an assemblage of plants with similar life-cycles. The most narrowly inclusive taxon to which they all belong is the Embryophytes, and the Taxobox is on that page accordingly. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe it should be merged because as stated in Modern Biology Albert Towle et al. on p. 583 "The three phyla of nonvascular plants are collectively called bryophytes. Meaning that there should be one article please tell me if you are in favor or opposed to this merge.Etineskid (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- they shouldn't merge. the bryo page is already too crowded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etineskid (talk • contribs)
- It shouldn't be merged because some texts consider algae to be plants, making them non-vascular "plants" as well, but they are not bryophytes. The two concepts are thus not the same. "Non-vascular plant" is a broader and less well-defined term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, whenever the paraphyletic group is mentioned, it is put in inverted commas so as not to confuse it with the monophyletic Bryophyta. Would it be appropriate to apply that to this article? Mastercampbell (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The previous version had two problems:
- The account of the Qiu et al. paper was incorrect.
- Although a citation had been requested for the alternative view, none had been provided.
Lifecycle and Sexuality
These two sections seem to have some overlap and perhaps should be merged into one section. The bit about haploid and diploid seems to me distracting--readers should read the alt. of gen. page if they want to understand the haploid vs. diploid phases. If we keep that reference to chromosomes, I would suggest saying haploid has one full set, while diploid has two full sets of chromosomes, as it is potentially confusing as written.Michaplot (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you about merging. I thought the article before you recently started to edit it was rather poor, for such an important topic. Your clarifications and improvements encouraged me to join in. I'm all in favour of referring to the Alternation of generations article (but I would be if you look at the article history :-) ). Here I've so far stuck to adding new material (I think the recent de-stressing of 'vascular' as a key difference is relevant and interesting) and copy-editing. Go ahead and merge the sections. This should not, I think, be a highly technical article, so whatever simplifications can be made while retaining information seem good to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. The lifecycle is the standard alternation of generations, as expressed in bryophytes. Sexuality in bryophytes has an entire vocabulary to describe conditions that do not occur in vascular plant sporophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the way you've rearranged the material meets my concern about overlap, so I'm ok with the article structure as it is now.
- (On the terminology point, as we've discussed before, there's a difference between the way terms are defined and they way they get used by botanists, often loosely or improperly. I would say that species of the genus Salix are both dioecious and dioicous. The gametophytes of extant angiosperms are all dioicous, so the monoicous/dioicous distinction is not relevant, but there are gametophytes of extinct polysporangiophytes which appear to be monoicous. So although I agree that the terms are easier to explain in the context of "bryophytes", I don't accept that they are restricted to them.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, the terms are not restricted. Gametophytes of seed plants are all diooicous, for example. However, my point is that the underlying biology of bryophyte sexulaity is radically different from that in Salix, with all kinds of variation never seen in flowering plants. Even the terms like protandry that are applied to both groups have an entirely different biological meaning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Classification and Phylogeny
The recent edits seemed to be in good faith, but some of the sources were inadequate. If the information is accurate, it could have better support. The editor might benefit by creating a user id as well.Michaplot (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The content of the edit:
- "In antiquity, the term "muscus" was used by Greek and Roman scholars to refer to, besides the actual bryophytes, lichens and some algae, vascular plants and even invertebrates. In Renaissance, some authors have studied genera of medical interest. A more comprehensive study was made by Dillenius in his Historia muscarum (1741), but he misinterpreted the capsule (sporangium) as anther and the spores as pollen grains. Linnaeus, in his Species Plantarum (1753), placed the bryophytes near flowering plants. Johannes Hedwig, the father of bryology, clarified the reproductive system of bryophytes and arranged their taxonomy."
- "The term Bryophyta was coined by Braun (1864) to include algae, lichens, fungi and mosses. Ascherson (1860) and Schimper (1879) redefined it. Eichler (1883) divided it in Musci and Hepaticae. Howe (1899) separeted hornworts from Hepaticae, creating the class Anthocerotes."
- "The starting point for valid publication of names for mosses (the Sphagnaceae excepted) is the Species muscorum (1801) of Hedwig. For Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, the starting point is the Species plantarum (1753) of Linnaeus" Zorahia (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Terminology used in Comparison Tables
Complete botanic newbie here, but from a nonspecialist perspective, reading this interesting page through, one arrives at two tables (under 'Comparison') which classify using a terminology ('Hepaticae; Muscil; Anthocerotae') which is not previously mentioned on the page. Although research on other Wikipedia pages let me understand these terms, perhaps they should be defined previously on this page, or explained in a caption or a footnote to the tables, which would assist the naive reader. Denisdecastro (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch! The table was perhaps from an earlier version which used different terminology. I've altered the headings to the English names, which are more constant that the scientific ones at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
"Moss alternation of generations" image wrong?
Isn't the image wrong? It shows gametophytes both to the left and to the right. Moss gametophytes are haploid and should only appear on the right hand side of the picture, unless I am more mistaken than usual. Mlewan (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are quite right. The haploid diploid divide is in totally the wrong place. And haploid is incorrectly spelled. Plantsurfer 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, the image just required additional explanation. Haploid structures are shown in green, while diploid are shown in brown. The only errors are that (1) haploid is misspelled and the spore should be green. I might be able to fix this with my basic graphics software. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)