Talk:Flora of Antarctica

Target

@Plantdrew: Why target Antarctica § Plants? There's much more information at § Flora of Antarctica. – Scyrme (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scyrme:, Antarctic flora is focused on plants that evolved in Antarctica when it was warmer some of which are now found in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, with a little bit about plants currently found in Antarctica. Other Flora of... titles are almost exclusively about the modern vegetation of a place (usually a political division). Flora of Australia does include some evolutionary history (appropriately as Australia both a political division and a continent; continents, including Antarctica are large enough units that something could be said about the evolutionary history of plants). The plants section of the Antarctica article mentions Poa annua, which has become established after humans began exploring Antarctica. If Antarctic flora is meant to include the modern flora (including recent introductions) as well as evolutionary history it should have the "Flora of" title. If really is intended to focus on evolutionary history and not mention recent introductions, then I think the plants section of the Antarctica is the best target for "Flora of". Plantdrew (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: In my interpretation of the content, Antarctic flora is focused on plants that evolved in Antarctica (and the broader supercontinent of which it was part) and their modern descendants; it is not just about palaeoflora.

Regardless of the rest of the article the section Antarctic flora § Flora of Antarctica already is titled "Flora of" and has information about modern flora in its third paragraph including some not present in Antarctica § Plants, particularly examples of endemic mosses and the number of algal species (although they are plants only in sensu lato).

I see your point about modern introductions though. Perhaps a turning the redirect into a split is worth considering, as it would be able to cover all of this, including both evolutionary history and modern introductions, without burdening either article with excessive or irrelevant detail. – Scyrme (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned the redirect to how you had it. There is more information at Antarctic flora as you pointed out. The Antarctic flora article is under-referenced and addresses several related topics rather poorly. Improving the present article would be more productive than arguing about a redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]