Talk:Glomeromycota
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Glomeromycota is supported by WikiProject Fungi, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fungi. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within mycology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This subject is within the scope of Soil WikiProject, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve these articles or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] Number of species
How many species are in this division? --Savant13 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] number of phyla
I deleted the reference to "the six recognised fungal phyla" because I thought it was repetition of what anybody that wants to know this can find out from fungus. Secondly, it is misleading as there are plenty of fungi that are not included in these six (e.g. Zoopagomycotina, Kickxellomycotina, etc...), so the true number is 7,8, possibly 9. Opening an article in this way is very waffly. Bendž|Ť 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I certainly appreciate the fact that you edit many of the fungal pages in Wikipedia and are well up on recent literature, but "waffly" really does not apply here. Basically what you are saying is that the group of 67 professional mycologists worldwide from Canada, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, the USA, and the UK, who for the first time ever have reached a consensus based upon recent molecular data, and who hesitated to recognize where Zoopagomycotina etc. go, but did recognized 6 phyla at this time, are waffling. How is citing it this way misleading? Yes, there may be more recognizd in the future, but for now, given the reference, only 6 were "recognized". Heliocybe 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
