From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge Phylum lycophyta?[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

This is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Squirrels — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reformat Article[edit]

The image Lycopodiophyta spores.jpg may need to be moved for formating reasons - it is blocking part of the text on the last line of the article. -Fastily (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Better?--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (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)

Living Fossil?[edit]

How can a humungous taxon containing 1200 species be a living fossil? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)