Talk:Gymnosperm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what is the scientific name for gymnosperm?
- The question is not a simple one because by "scientific name" you imply something about the classification of the species included in the group, which in this case, has undergone considerable revision in recent decades. If you are happy with just a "name" as used by scientists to indicate the group "gymnosperms" then Gymnospermae might do, although because Class Gymnospermae is not used anymore, it is really better to just use "gymnosperms" to generally refer to those plants under the scientific terms listed at the bottom of the article - Marshman 19:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Name
There is not really such a thing as a "gymnosperm". There is a name "gymnosperms", Gymnospermae for a group of plants. As this name is widely used and is found throughout the literature there should be an entry on it and the name itself is a convenience. For the entry the name "gymnosperms" would be more accurate than "gymnosperm".
A note as to the above comment: the scientific name is Gymnospermae (a name that can be used at any rank above that of family). This is straightforward. Also straightforward is what belongs to the group. The complicated issue is the nature of this group, which is of uncertain affinity, quite possibly paraphyletic (or worse). Brya 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the commentor is correct however: gymnosperms (the subject of this article) is what the article name should be - Marshman 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) says "in general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English". Gdr 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think that policy is being misapplied or is as written short-sighted, or at least should have the caveat that the plural is appropriate where the article is, in fact, about the plural and not the singular. This is a good example. While gymnosperm is the correct dictionary term, the article is not about "a gymnosperm" or "the gymnosperm", but the gymnosperms - Marshman 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You could say the same about almost all articles. Dinosaur is about the dinosaurs, mammal is about the mammals, and so on. Gdr 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are right; in that sense they are all dictionary terms and not encyclopedia article names. But one could read the policy this way: "...unless that term is always in a plural form in English" means, if you are talking about dinosaurs, then that is the the way the term is always (corrctly) used; "The dinosaur lived millions of years ago" would be incorrect English. - Marshman 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taxobox
Why is there a taxobox on this page if gymnosperms are no longer an individual taxon? SCHZMO ✍ 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- There's still a fair degree of uncertainty - they may be a natural monophyletic taxon, after all - MPF 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kubitzki system
Could someone knowledgeable describe the relevance of the Kubitzki system here (in the article)? Thanks very much. --Eleassar my talk 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
