Talk:Plant taxonomy

Plants Top‑importance

	Plants portal 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evaluating Content: What else could be improved? I feel as though there is plenty to add to this article specifically why we classify and use taxonomy to organize plants into categories, groups, etc. I also think that we could go more in depth about how over time we have began to classify plans differently and why. This is a good article so far- it could just use some more details!! AMCO1994 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on adding a more detailed section on plant taxonomy's historical evolution and uses. Holmes75 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)madison[reply]

Bibliography

The Taxonomy of Plants. www.botanicalartandartists.com/plant-evolution-and-taxonomy.html.

Wikipedia contributors. "History of plant systematics." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Aug. 2017. Web. 22 Feb. 2018.

Weakley, Alan S. "Why Are Plant Names Changing so Much?." Native Plants Journal (Indiana University Press), vol. 6, no. 1, Spring2005, pp. 52-58. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16828376&site=ehost-live.

Holmes75 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson, Keith Stewart. "By any Other Name." American Scientist, vol. 83, no. 6, Nov/Dec95, p. 514. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9417487&site=ehost-live.

Quammen, David. "A Passion for Order." National Geographic, vol. 211, no. 6, June 2007, pp. 72-87. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25127514&site=ehost-live. Holmes75 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plantae table and Liliaceae example[edit]

Under the heading "Plantae, the Plant Kingdom", although not explicitly stated, the table appears to be restricted to only the divisions of extant Embryophyta (land plants).

As Bryophyta and Hepatophyta (Marchantiophyta) are included in the table, then why is Anthocerotophyta (hornworts) omitted? It has been proposed that both liverworts and hornworts should be included in the division Bryophyta, as classes Marchantiopsida and Anthocerotopsida. If this proposed change is accepted then Hepatophyta should be removed from the table.

Pteridophyta is polyphyletic, so should be replaced by the monophyletic Lycopodiophyta (clubmosses, spikemosses & quillworts) and Polypodiophyta (ferns & horsetails). As Polypodiophyta includes horsetails, as does Pteridophyta, Equisetophyta should be removed from the table.

As Ginkgophyta and Coniferophyta (Pinophyta) are included, then why are Cycadophyta (cycads) and Gnetophyta (gnetum, ephedra & welwitschia) omitted?

For Coniferophyta, the column headed "Notes" states: "Includes Pinales, Taxales, Cupressaceae and hundreds of other species". The Pinales article states: "The order Pinales ... comprises all the extant conifers". Perhaps the examples should be restricted to the rank of family; e.g. Pinaceae.

The name "Angiosperms" appears in a column headed “Latin”, so strictly the name should be Angiospermae, or preferably Magnoliophyta, which is used elsewhere in the article. Also, in the column headed "Notes", the claim that Angiosperms are "divided into two main classes the monocotyledons and dicotyledons" is no longer accepted, as dicotyledons are paraphyletic.

Under the heading "Identification, classification and description of plants", the list that follows the text "For example, the family to which the lilies belong is classified as follows:" includes a line containing the common names of miscellaneous genera, and a line containing the common names of miscellaneous species. None of these genera or species is even in the same order as "the family to which lilies belong". Maidenhair (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson's Plant Systematics[edit]

Engagement with a wider variety of sources would improve this article. For example, Simpson's Plant Systematics is in its third edition and would be an excellent source to consult. I plan to use this in the near future to help improve this article. I welcome other suggestions. SyLvRuUz (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]