Talk:Bryopsida

de:Laubmoose

The german article states clearly that Laubmoose is the same as the class that is scientifically named Bryopsida. --Etxrge (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are using a different classification of mosses. Their page includes the Polytrichopsida within the "Laubmosse", so it is not the same as Bryopsida sensu Buck and Goffinet as outlined here on the English Wiktionary. The Germans are following a system unique to German literature, and which is not followed on any other Wikipedia. Also, the German article on Laubmoose links to Moss, not to Bryopsida (or at least it did until you went and changed it). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 15 orders listed as belonging to Bryopsida in English Wikipedia, 10 are listed as belonging to Laubmoose in German Wikipedia. Also, the German article links to Bryopsida in Commons. Thus there are differences in delineation, but the bulk of the species correspond. Certainly, Laubmoose is the closest we get. (Given the discrepancies, maybe the article text should be less firm.) The argument that the german article linked to moss is highly inappropriate, since that linking was obviously incorrect.--Etxrge (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable statements of fact are never "inappropriate". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many meanings

Here EncycloPetey states that there are many meanings of Bryopsida. If this is true the article should be changed to describe all the commonly held variants. --Etxrge (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be a section in this article that explains other former uses of the term "Bryopsida". It should point to the articles that treat those other meanings. For instance, when the bryophytes were considered to be a single division, the mosses were called Bryopsida. But note that this should be done in a discrete section. The article should not try to cover all the possible meanings, or it will be a mish-mash of many different topics, most of which already are covered on other pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species count

This article had unsourced, undated figures of Bryopsida being "approximately 11,500" (described) species and "95%" of all moss species.

I replaced them with statements specific to a notable source on species counts, the 2015 Catalogue of Life. If anyone prefers the old figures or wants to call into question to what extent this source accurately represents a majority view of these figures, then I believe comparing to other notable sources is required. I'm particularly concerned that reverting to the unsourced, undated "11,500" wouldn't improve this page because if anything the Catalogue figure is likely an underestimate. New species are documented all the time. --Dancor (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalogue of Life is not a reliable source and should not be used for citations on Wikipedia. Their moss listings are riddled with errors. We need a better source. The problem is finding a source that specifically enumerates the Bryopsida. All sources I've found require processing of the figures to arrive at the number, and that would constitute original research. That is, it's easy to find listings of the total number of all mosses, and numbers for the groups that are not in Bryopsida, and to arrive at the figure through mathematics, but it's difficult to find a source that explicitly counts members of the Bryopsida sensu Goffinet and Buck. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the WP:Reliable Sources does the yearly published version of The Catalogue of Life fail to meet? Also, why are we leaving the 11,500 figure if it has no source? Please consider rereading WP:Revert_only_when_necessary. --Dancor (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLANTS has had discussions before about this inadequacy of the Catalog if you care to sift through their talk archives. The Catalog does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and as a source for science information it is not peer-reviewed. The data from their two sources for bryophytes have been added uncritically and without proper integration and consideration of differences in synonymy nor different classification structures between the two competing databases. For just one example of their problems: if you visit the page you linked, they list "Order Tetraphidae" and "Order Tetraphidales", which are the same taxon. Further, note their listing for Marchantiopsida includes only 76 species, but there are more species than that in just the genus Riccia. If you disagree with me and believe The Catalogue of Life is a reliable source, then please show that it meets the criteria.

It is also not clear why you altered the percentage to 90% when citing, as your source gives no such percentage. If you calculated percent out of "Bryophyta" in their database, then you should realize that their Bryophyta includes non-mosses, whereas in the Goffinet-Buck classification (used on Wikipedia) the division Bryophyta includes only mosses.

As I indicated in my previous comment, the figure does have a source, but not one that can be directly cited. That is, the figure is accurate from reliable sources, but it does not have a directly citable source usable by Wikipedia criteria yet. I do keep looking, but these sorts of figures can be very hard to track down for the several newly created classes of bryophytes. You can add a [citation needed] certainly but please do not add citations from sources that are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.174.146 (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]