Talk:Lycopodiophyta

Lycopodiophyta

Whose classification are you following? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just put here the rank of the new classification used in PPG and ITIS. Classification of true lycophytes in two part is still right with phylogeny, see Novikoff 2015[1] which used old ranks. I dont care if the old or the new ranks are used, bud there was a problem with the used of Zosterophyllopsida (new rank) not separated from true lycophytes (old rank Lycopodiopsida + Isoëtopsida).

Old ranks: Lycophytina or Lycopodiophytina † Zosterophyllophyta Lycophyta or Lycopodiophyta (true lycophytes) Lycopodiopsida Lycopodiales Isoëtopsida Isoëtales Selaginellales

New ranks: Lycopodiophyta? or better to keep Lycopodiophytina, subdivision of Tracheophyta, like on ITIS † Zosterophyllopsida Lycopodiopsida (true lycophytes) Lycopodiidae (synonym of Lycopodiopsida s.s.) Lycopodiales Isoëtidae (synonym of Isoëtopsida) Isoëtales Selaginellales

--Boogie Boy (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: How can we write a sum-up of our modification on wikidata?!? I dont like to make modifications without explanations.

Actually, I could have better to move Zosterophyllopsida on a new page as Zosterophyllophyta, but it's more complex. The problem is that a lot of people in the differents Wikipedia dont understand that Wikipedia is not a taxonomic dictionnary but an encyclopedia. Articles are not about taxon names but about taxa (WP:PLANTS/NOTABOUTNAME). So, with the big changements in plants rank, they do it wrong by changing the articles instead of simply change the title. And it creates a huge mess between all the wikipedia, wikidata, wikispecies, commons ... ....

So i thought it was too late because so lot of changement have been made in a lot on wikipedia, and now maybe we have to do it in the bad way here too. Actually, a lot of things of this page should be merged in Lycopodiopsida, like vernacular names or some synonyms. And maybe we have to rename this page in Lycophytina or Lycopodiophytina. --Boogie Boy (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

PPS: as i said in comments "Zosterophylls (traditionnaly Zosterophyllophyta) had traditionnaly been treated outside Lycophytes (Locophyta/Locopodiophyta) and are a paraphyletic stem-group in Locophytina regrouping them (see Kenrick & Crane, 1997). They are archaic form and call them "lycophytes" is abusive (see Taylor & Taylor 1993). So don't you think the page containing true lycophytes and zosterophylls should be named Lycophytina or maybe Lycopodiophytina and not Lycopodiophyta? Actually i don't understand if Lycophytina is unvalid beacause of the prefix Lyco- instead of Lycopodio-, and I don't really understand the validity of Lycopodiophytina for that. Rugerio et al use it to contain Lycopodiopsida s.l., so it seems logical it contains zosterophylls.

What do you think @EncycloPetey: and @RLJ:? --Boogie Boy (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't "move" a class to become a division. Class names and divisional names have different authors and different synonyms. Part of the problem with your edits to the Lycopodiophyta was that you moved pages around rather than synonymizing or de-synonymizing as appropriate. It's left quite a mess to clean up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The PPG citation may be acceptable. ITIS is not an authority suitable for classifications. It can be used as a database for finding references, but various parts of it have been curated to different degrees. The ITIS plants groups vary according to the degree to which those groups have been curated by the various contributing authors. Until a few years ago, I wouldn't have trusted it for any taxonomic information at all, but some individual authors and groups of authors have tidied up certain groups of plants. If you're relying on ITIS, please don't. It can be cited in the Links section, but is not itself a taxonomic authority to rely upon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for you answer. I just wanted to put a message here to say i wanted to go back and make the changes differently by creating the new page Lycophytina to do it in the good way cause it's not too late.

But first, realize that the mess is not because of me and I actually cleaned up a part of it. The begining of the problem was the wrong placement of Zosterophyllopsida in Lycopodiophyta near Lycopdiopsida s.s. and Isoëtopsida. They have to be outside of Lycopodiophyta/Lycopodiopsida s.l. and in Lycophytina. I don't care of the ranks and u can put classes in Lycophytina like in Crane and Kenrick 1996 and more.

The problem is also the bad way that elements in wikidata are defined. Subject of elements have to be the taxa and not the taxa name and rank, or its impossible to link differents wiki that could title differently the same things.

And third, things gone a total mess when they changed the pages Lycopodiophyta and Lycopodiopsida in english wiki last year instead of simply change the title and create the new page Lycophytina (as I had already said upper).

I'm completely ok to go back with my changement, thats why i was working on Lycophytina. But now the question is to know if Lycopodiophytina is a synonym of Lycophytina (instead of Lycopodiophyta) and could contain Zosterophylls. For me it's completely logical that this Pteridophyta/Tracheophyta? subdivision can do that, but i dont find the original Tippo 1942 or the exact meaning of Lycopodiophytina Tippo ex Reveal.

Here is what i propose:

• Lycophytina (or Lycopodiophytina if its the correct form synonym)
  • † Zosterophyllophyta (option 2: Zosterophyllopsida)
  • Lycopodiophyta (option 2: Lycopodiopsida)
    • Lycopodiopsida (option 2: Lycopodiidae)
    • Isoëtopsida (option 2: Isoëtidae)
      

PS: Actually, option 2 seems to be better to follow PPG with no more division into Tracheophyta and all the changes done in differents wiki.

--Boogie Boy (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is another possibility. If you dont accept Lycophytina or Lycopodiophytina, Zoterophyllopsida/Zosterophyllophyta should simply be in Tracheophyta or in Pteridophyta. --Boogie Boy (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, you can see in "Phylonyms, A Companion to the PhyloCode" that in 2011, Cantino et al. have defined Lycopodiophyta as:

"The smallest crown clade containing Lycopodium clavatum Linnaeus 1753, Huperzia selago (Linnaeus) Schrank & Martius 1829 (originally described as Lycopodium selago Linnaeus 1753), Isoetes lacustris Linnaeus 1753, and Selaginella apoda (Linnaeus) Spring 1840 (originally described as Lycopodium apodum Linnaeus 1753). This is a minimum-crown-clade definition." --Boogie Boy (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The PhyloCode has not been adopted, so we would not use its system here. WikiSpecies adheres to names published under the internationally accepted International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).

We also face the problem that there are many competing systems and subsystems, many of which are in conflict with each other. We therefore typically agree as a community to follow a single self-consistent system for each group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad for having talk about the PhyloCode, i'm completly ok that we are not here to make a phylogenic classification.

I'm completely ok too with what you said about competing systems and subsytems, and I never wanted to impose one. I'm here to ask the community which one they want to apply to correct the errors.

Because even in a traditional classification i'm pretty sure you can't put Zosterophylopsida inside Lycopodiophyta. Zosterophylls was originally Zosterophyllophyta in a division-system inside Tracheophyta. I don't know if Zosterophylopsida was originally a subclasse of Zosterophyllophyta (still in use), but even if it wasnt, the uses of it for all zosterophylls have been made in a class-system inside Trachophyta near Lycopodiopsida, Rhyniopsida and more. (And all the real vernacular names, like clubmosses can't be applied to zosterophylls, like its abusive to call them lycophytes)

So i'm asking the community weach system they want to use:

System A: Lycophytina: † Zosterophyllophyta (A' Zosterophyllopsida) Lycopodiophyta: (A' Lycopodiopsida) Lycopodiopsida: (A' Lycopodiidae) Lycopodiales Isoëtopsida: (A' Isoëtidae) Isoëtales Selaginellales

System B: Tracheophyta: † Zosterophyllophyta (or Zosterophyllopsida, doesn't matter) Lycopodiophyta: (B' Lycopodiopsida) Lycopodiopsida: (B' Lycopodiidae) Lycopodiales Isoëtopsida: (B' Isoëtidae) Isoëtales Selaginellales ...

I prefer system A'. Lycophytina seems valid and useful, and it's better to follow PPG and be harmonised with a lot of wikipedia. --Boogie Boy (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Harmonizing with Wikipedia" is not an easy thing, nor should it be a consideration. There are many Wikipedias (English, French, German, Chinese, ...), and they do not all use the same classification system. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and Wikispecies should be using a system published in scientific literature, not a system from another database or a wiki. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So is it to be PPG I. 2016. A community-derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns. Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 54: 563–603. DOI: 10.1111/jse.12229? Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure Wikipedia is not a source ! I never said that. The source is PPG. I just talked about that in comment to justify a little more my choice, because a lot of people could not understand that their page Lycopodiopsida can be tittled Lycopodiophyta here. If you doesn't care so choose system A or B. But can you please give your choice? --Boogie Boy (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought B was closer to PPG as it includes Tracheophyta? Andyboorman (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Lycopodiophyta

The 1900 citation for the name is incorrect. The earliest valid publication is the 1909 paper. I have seen the purported 1900 source, and no such name was validly published there. Reveal made an error in his attribution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Some publications or databases supporting your view should be cited.

2) The name Lepidophyta Bessey 1907 would have priority over the 1909 name.

3) I have seen both books. The name Lycopodiophyta D.H.Scott 1900 (and 1909) was published as "Lycopodiales" (the paper deals with phyla = divisions, not with orders, see 1900: 13), but it has to be auto-corrected to Lycopodiophyta according to Art. 16.3 ICN. I think Reveal is correct. --RLJ (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Lepidophyta would have priority, but priority is not mandatory for names at the rank of division. Most authors have used Lycopodiophyta. Using a completely different name solely because of priority, when priority is not a requirement for this rank, would not be appropriate for the Wikispecies database. Please quote the portion of the 1900 work that supports your view; I cannot find any support for such a divisional (or phylum) name in the 1900 publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Page 13, under Fossil Equisetales, says "We know that among living Pteridophyta we can distinguish three great classes or phyla: the Ferns, the Lycopods, and the Horsetails". The primary group here is "Pteridophyta", and the three "classes or phyla" are within this divisional name. It is also clear from the list of three that he is using common names, not taxonomic ones, unless you think Ferns should be corrected to Fernophyta and Horsetails to Horsetailophyta. There is therefore neither taxonomic room in his statement for a phylum within a division, as he appears to be referring to classes within the Pteridophyta. He says "classes or phyla", and since he names a division (phylum) and explicitly places the Lycopods within that division or phylum, the rank of class, which he also names, must be the intended one. So we name a non-taxonomic name here at a rank below division. There is thus no division/phylum name established here, despite Reveal's claim. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Lycopodiophyta D.H.Scott, Stud. Foss. Pl.: 13, 500, 501. 1900 (as "Lycopodiales")

Scott's Pteridophyta are at the level of Sub-Kingdom (subregnum), as can be read in the preface. We have a protologue comprising pages 13, 500 and 501. On page 13 the systematic level "phylum" is fixed (didactically circumscribed as "greater class", the book is a series of lectures). On page 500 the name "Lycopodiales" is created for this phylum "lycopods", this has to be corrected to Lycopodiophyta according to Art. 16.3 ICN. The diagnosis with circumscription of the taxon is on the rest of page 500 and on page 501. --RLJ (talk)

That's a stretch to justify that, since he says "classes or phyla". There is no clear or unambiguous statement of the intended rank. There is no such rank as a "great class" and it is not at all clear that he intends it to mean anything other than "large" or "significant" which are the usual meanings of that word in English. "Three [significant] classes or phyla" does not provide a solid ground on which to claim that the intended rank is anything more than class, which is the first stated rank. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)