Talk:Lycophyta


 * It's not a misspelling, but what should it be marked as? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * says it was originally an "orthographic error" for Lycopodiophyta. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wherever I am drawn in taxon entries, there is so much more. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although the definition still leaves me a mite confused. I've never been good with plants. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to clarify it tersely. The English vernacular names and the component orders (circumscription) seem to be about the same no matter how Lycophyta is placed. Many don't like the term as it is ill-formed. It should be formed using Lycpodi- (Lycopodium) as the stem + -phyta. But many, including the paleontologists (who often cling to fossil terms), like the long-used shorter term. Almost all of the "higher" taxa are subject to a great deal of apparent change in organization, though the circumscriptions change only at the margin. There are some term for which Wikispecies simply presents the views of as many authorities as it can, including the many changes of mind by . DCDuring TALK 06:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen both, but, not being a plant person, largely sidestepped it and gotten away with using the vernacular "lycophyte". Taxonomy is both a boon and a curse, I suppose. I reckon a short usage note wouldn't hurt, anyhow. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)