Talk:Bryopsida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bryopsida 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. |
[edit] de:Laubmoose
The german article states clearly that Laubmoose is the same as the class that is scientifically named Bryopsida. --Etxrge (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are using a different classification of mosses. Their page includes the Polytrichopsida within the "Laubmosse", so it is not the same as Bryopsida sensu Buck and Goffinet as outlined here on the English Wiktionary. The Germans are following a system unique to German literature, and which is not followed on any other Wikipedia. Also, the German article on Laubmoose links to Moss, not to Bryopsida (or at least it did until you went and changed it). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Out of 15 orders listed as belonging to Bryopsida in English Wikipedia, 10 are listed as belonging to Laubmoose in German Wikipedia. Also, the German article links to Bryopsida in Commons. Thus there are differences in delineation, but the bulk of the species correspond. Certainly, Laubmoose is the closest we get. (Given the discrepancies, maybe the article text should be less firm.) The argument that the german article linked to moss is highly inappropriate, since that linking was obviously incorrect.--Etxrge (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Verifiable statements of fact are never "inappropriate". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Out of 15 orders listed as belonging to Bryopsida in English Wikipedia, 10 are listed as belonging to Laubmoose in German Wikipedia. Also, the German article links to Bryopsida in Commons. Thus there are differences in delineation, but the bulk of the species correspond. Certainly, Laubmoose is the closest we get. (Given the discrepancies, maybe the article text should be less firm.) The argument that the german article linked to moss is highly inappropriate, since that linking was obviously incorrect.--Etxrge (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Many meanings
Here EncycloPetey states that there are many meanings of Bryopsida. If this is true the article should be changed to describe all the commonly held variants. --Etxrge (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. There should be a section in this article that explains other former uses of the term "Bryopsida". It should point to the articles that treat those other meanings. For instance, when the bryophytes were considered to be a single division, the mosses were called Bryopsida. But note that this should be done in a discrete section. The article should not try to cover all the possible meanings, or it will be a mish-mash of many different topics, most of which already are covered on other pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
