Talk:Sargassum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep. Should be renamed Sargassum (see Marine biology#Plant life) and cleaned up. --MarkSweep 18:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References

{{helpme}}

I just cannot get this reference be accepted!!Osborne [will have to check which article!] Yes it is "sargassum - ref 1. I'm stumped.Osborne 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

<ref name="Thomas 02">'''Thomas, D.N.''' 2002. ''Seaweeds.'' The Natural History Museum, London. ISBN 0 565 09175 1</ref>

I've fixed it for you. You were missing the slash in the <references/> tag. Hope that helps! --ais523 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh - that "references" I had checker the </ref> about a dozen times. ThanksOsborne 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant?

Hopped over from the Seaweed article, which seems a little queasy about calling seaweeds "plants".

Seaweeds are often confused with other photosynthetic organisms. Seaweeds are popularly described as plants, but biologists typically do not consider them true Plantae. They should not be confused either with plants, such as seagrasses (which are vascular plants). In addition, a few species of cyanobacteria bear a resemblance to seaweed algae. Many phycologists prefer the term "marine macroalgae" over "seaweeds". -Seaweed#Taxonomy

Should this article still refer to individual specimens of Sargassum as 'plants' (under #Description)? However, the quoted paragraph does sport 3 'citations needed'.

Alveolate 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They are definitly not plants, i will change it to algae. 148.197.5.20 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider algae/seaweed as plants along with other photosynthetic organisms, such as the trees in my garden, perhaps I am old-fashioned. Cyanobacteria are definitely not plants, (nither are fungi for that matter) more closely related to bacteria.Osborne 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)