Talk:Gymnosperm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Gymnosperm is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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)

Contents 1 Name 2 Taxobox 3 Kubitzki system 4 Gymnoperms 5 Article Name

[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)

[edit] Gymnoperms

Does the gymnosperms have flowers?00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)devinewords

No, by definition, a gymnosperm is not a flowering plant. Beat Buddha (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Why does this article not use Gymnospermae as its title in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)? If the reader is familiar with "gymnosperm," "Gymnospermae" is not a long logical leap. Whether or not the gymnosperms are monophyletic, I find the Latin far more preferable, and it seems better to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Those for or against moving this article to Gymnospermae please respond below. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: if anyone claims that using the Latin name somehow makes a group monophyletic, then why are Latin names like Charales, Protista, and Pteridospermatophyta still in common use? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)