|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Since there is no single form for a "plant fossil" it seems reasonable to merge information about such fossils into the article on Paleobotany, which is the science that deals with plant fossils. Much of the information about the interpretation of such fossils would otherwise be duplicated between the articles. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I agree, good idea. Aelwyn 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged articles. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to de-orphan the above article. I have added a link to it in the See Also section. However, it would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than I work a link into the text. Or perhaps merge the article in completely. Thanks. --Sophitessa (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most spectacular of plant fossils is petrified wood."
Eocene leaf and (sea?)grass images available
The nomenclature rules for plant fossils as expressed in this article are out of date. Form taxa disappeared from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature over 10 years ago (with the 2000 'St Louis Code'). There has since been some dispute as to the best way forward, but a recent review in the journal Taxon has argued that they should be referred to as fossil-taxa. I know something of the history of this issue and could re-word this section. However as it would require a fairly substantial rewrite, I thought it advisable to post this suggestion before doing anything. CCleal (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would be great to get an rewrite of the section with overviews of the current thinking and proposals!--Kevmin § 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion in this section is of interest to taxonomists, but rather too detailed, in my view, for the article, which is of more general interest. I would be in favour of having a summary here and forking the content to a separate article. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If there were significantly more content in this article, I would agree on a split (not a WP:FORK). However, this is a tiny article at present, so I'd rather it stay together for the time being. This is one of the articles I'd like to expand greatly, but don't have the time to do it well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what extra detail is necessary. The nomenclature of plant fossils does not differ substantially from that of living plants, other than the provision of fossil-taxa that can be used to name fossils representing particular plant parts in particular preservation states. There is I suppose the different starting point for palaeobiotanical nomenclature (Sternberg 1820 rather than Linneaus). There are also a few minor points relating to typification, allowable language for diagnosis and the use of illustrations as types, but are these technicalities the sorts of thing that we should have in a Wikipedia article? If so, they can easily be added to flesh out a stand-alone article. Or are we thinking of giving more examples of the use of fossil-taxa for different parts of fossil plants? CCleal (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think more technical detail re the ICBN is not appropriate (there are enough articles on botanical nomenclature!). However, I think some more examples would be helpful, e.g. examples of naming spores when the sporophyte is unknown; separate names for sporophytes & gametophytes before they are linked; separate names for parts of plants not initially found associated; etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need the lists in Paleobotany#Fossil_groups_of_plants and Paleobotany#Notable_Paleobotanists? At the moment they are very random; it would be easy to add 20-30 extra to each, but what would be the point? How would entries be chosen for either list? What are the criteria? Personally I'm in favour of removing both lists. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)