Discussioni utente:EncycloPetey

Bryophyta

I'm updating the classification according to The Bryophyte Nomenclator and World Flora Online --ESCULAPIO ^@msg 00:32, 20 mar 2024 (CET)

World Flora Online's bryophytes are edited by just one person, and it contains many errors. It is not a good model for bryophyte classification. For most flowering plants, it is very good, but it is not useful for bryophytes. Your classification does not match The Bryophyte Nomenclator, which has each of the three groups at the rank of Division. --EncycloPetey (msg) 00:39, 20 mar 2024 (CET)

The classification on Wikispecies is up-to-date and maintained to reflect changes. --EncycloPetey (msg) 03:12, 20 mar 2024 (CET)

The phrase in the incipit "Si tratta del gruppo più diversificato tra le piante non vascolari, con circa 24.000 specie." had "missed" the recent revision of the page. I corrected it, thanks for reporting.
Our primary taxonomic source is The Bryophyte Nomenclator (which is also a reference source for World Flora Online, as far as I can verify). According to the adopted taxonomy, Bryophyta, Marchantiophyta and Anthocerotophyta, are considered as separate phylum. In the current version, the page Bryophyta in univocally referring to musci (Bryophyta s.s.); the "old" meaning of the term (i.e. Bryophyta s.l.) is quoted in the text only for historical reason.--ESCULAPIO ^@msg 10:39, 28 mar 2024 (CET)

Forgive me, but you're getting a little annoying. It is not up to you to judge the contents of the pages, nor to go into the merits of the quality and appropriateness of the sources. Page Bryophyta of it.wiki, which undoubtedly deserves further improvements, however unequivocally refers to the phylum Bryophyta sensu stricto (and therefore does not include Marchantiophyta and Anthocerotophyta which, I repeat, are clearly treated as separate phylum). The Description section, as you highlighted, still needs to be updated, but this does not mean that the entry as a whole, not only for the incipit and the taxobox, but for what is explicitly said in the Taxonomy section, must clearly be linked to D:Q25347 and not to D:Q29993. Your persistence in rolling back therefore does not seem justified to me. --ESCULAPIO ^@msg 19:13, 28 mar 2024 (CET)