Template talk:Plant classification

Template

This template contains mixed phylogenies and taxa with various standings in current and older taxonomies. Does it serve its purpose by doing so? And should it be on plant article pages without explanations as to what it is showing? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Do the pages using Template:Taxobox and Template:Automatic taxobox contain mixed phylogenies and taxa with various standings in current and older taxonomies? --Arcadian (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

How do we include the new information that embryophytes developed within the Charophytes? Basically Charophytes are a synonym now for Streptophytes, when the Embryophytes are put in a deep supbranch of the Charophytes.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I don't think the table really needs altering, as it reflects the current classification of plants. Basically;

1. Green algae = Chlorophyta plus Charophyta
2. Viridiplantae = Steptophyta plus Chlorophyta = Embryophyta plus Charophyta plus Chlorophyta = Embryophyta plus green algae
3. Steptophyta = Embryophyta plus Charophyta

Please read articles, they reflect this. Any alteration that does not reflect this would be incorrect with both articles and sources. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Plant synonymy doesn't work like that, at least not yet. Charophytes might be considered paraphyletic, but that doesn't de facto eliminate the taxon or synonymize it. Synonmy in plants requires changing the circumscription to include the type of the other taxon. That hasn't happened in the literature, so there is no reason to change the template or the articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the template suggests now that Embryophyta are distinct from Charophyta. E.g. Eliminating the taxon avoids this.Jmv2009 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the stance that land plants are not algae was criticized in [1] as "artificial".Jmv2009 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you land plants are not algae. Nevertheless, the Charophyta and Embryophyta are closely related. So closely related that they make up the taxon Streptophyta. Now if you look at the template it makes this clear: to the left is Streptophyta, and the two taxons to the right of this are the Charophyta and Embryophyta. So I believe anyone looking at the template should come to the right conclusion, that the Charophyta and Embryophyta are the two major taxon most closely related, so closely related that they make up the Streptophyta. I fail to see how anyone could not come to that conclusion really.

Look at the template again and see the rectangular block with Strepophyta written on it. To the right of it are two rectangular blocks labelled Charophyta and Embryophyta, which are connected with the same line. This indicates that this taxon can be subdivided into these two further taxons. I think you may be looking at the template incorrectly if you fail to see this. This pattern is consistent with the rest of the template. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that the subdivision itself is artificial, as it has been determined by molecular research that the Embryophytes are a deep branch in the Charophyte evolutionary tree. There is no definition that will enable you to say, if you include more and more extinct species, to say this is a a Charophyte, and this isn't anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv2009 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Look just think of the Streptophya as shorthand for the Charophyta and Embryophyta (green algae division and land plants).

Let's say a biologist wants to talk about the Charophyta and Embryophyta. Well that's a bit long-winded. So instead of saying "Charophyta and Embryophyta" he says "Steptophyta" instead. That's all it means, nothing more and nothing less. Steptophyta is just shorthand for Charophyta and Embryophyta.

NB Please indent and sign your comments. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make the decision to "eliminate" taxa. We don't have that power. (WP:NOR) If a consensus about nomenclature of basal green plant clades is published and is accepted in the literature, then we can choose follow that. To date, such a consensus has not appeared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced, should be removed.

This template cites no sources. It is causing confusion when placed on pages that discuss classification. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAVBOXES do not have specific sourcing as they are merely links to articles. They should be consistent with article sourcing. How do you feel this navbox causes confusion? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at a change at Streptophyta, which actually seems to be from a new editor, rather than from a thoroughly confused person as I first thought. That page discusses very different usages of the name Streptophyta, including two from 2012 that have such groups as Mesostigmatophyceae either inside or outside Streptophyta. Getting across the concept of taxonomic uncertainty is a challenge at any time, but then to end the page with this template which lays down the law with "this is the classification" make that considerably more difficult. Since I'm meeting resistance, I've collapsed it, and will do that on other pages if I see a need to try not to boil people's brains. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I agree that some groups such as the Streptophyta are a bit nebulous, but I think that the streptophyta = charophyta and embryophta is probably the most common definition, and this is what the template conveys, and what the article says too. By the way, do you feel that earlier versions such as [2] are a little clearer? I feel the current version, while being comprehensive, it perhaps a little overwhelming. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question has been dumping cladograms and lengthy taxonomic lists into multiple articles, and altering taxoboxes without adding to or adjusting the existing content of those articles. As a result, the taxoboxes and templates do not summarize the articles (as they should), but are instead at odds with article content. All taxoboxes and navigation templates should be simplified summaries of articles, not a comprehansive primary location for taxonomic information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. That summarizes the problem well. Wikipedia articles should be clear, but these ones are becoming off-putting to anyone who wants an introduction to a topic. There is actually a lot of uncertainty in taxonomy; the current best guess is all that we have, and many components are likely to change as further information becomes available or as older morphological data are brought back into the analyses. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

OK I've tried to improve the template. I've removed the red-links per WP:NAVBOX. I've also tried simplifying the descriptions slightly, which will hopefully make the template easier to follow. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why remove charophytes?

N.B.: This was never about removal of the charophytes from the template. It was always kept at the Streptophyte level, which is equal to the Charophyte level. The Embryophytes were then effectively part of the Charophytes in which they emerged.JMV2009

Jmv2009 why are you constantly trying to get rid of the charophyles. I know they're paraphyletic group, but it's an incredibly useful way of dividing the green algae. They're the two most cited green algal divisions. Next you'll want to get rid of the crustaceans or reptiles, which are also paraphyletic.

You're also destroying the template for low res screens with too many child templates. [3] . Ping EncycloPetey for views if possible. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Charophytes are still mentioned under Streptophytes, so its not necessery to mention it again. I'm ok with leaving Charophytes, as long as its specifically mentioned as paraphyletic (which is was in a previous version) Life is as complicated as it is. I don't think we have many paraphyletic groups in the templates any more. Examples? I'm not ok with having Embryophytes as equivalent to Charophytes. They should part of Charophytes, paraphyletic or not. As soon as you start detailing, paraphyletic clade drop out or start have to include previously excluded clades, that's just the way it is. Insisting to keep paraphyletic clades while continuing to excluding emerged clades stops everything. You are also mixing two arguments: the usefullness of recognition of names, and limited screen resolution. A possible solution would be to generate a separate "Embryophyte" template for the resolution issue. I think the evolution in the Charophytes giving rise to the Embryophyets is very interesting. What do you think about the 17:30 version, Jan 3 2016? --JMV2009

Just made it more compact again. Charophytes IS mentioned with link under Streptophytes. The Charophyte groups are included, but they are not explicitely grouped together as charophytes with Embryophytes seperately, which is misleading if you don't know the charophytes are paraphyletic or are new to the matter. It is clear the Charophyte groups mentioned are the charophytes, by exclusion. - JMV2009

Jmv2009 OK that is a slight improvement. But why not make the charophytes explicit? The template before was basically this:

Everything is clear in it. The streptophyta makes up the two boxes to the right of it, the charophyes and embryopytes. Your latest iteration [4] is much the same, but fails to make it clear that Mesostigmatophyceae Chlorokybophyceae Klebsormidiophyceae Charophyceae Coleochaetophyceae Zygnematophyceae make up the paraphyletic group known as the charophytes. You're just made it harder to see that. What the heck have you got against making this explicit? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Because when you make it explicit, it suggests for instance that Zygnematophyceae are closer to Mesostigmatophyceae while in fact they are closer to the Embryophytes. If you don't make it explicit, it's shown as either unresolved or not specified, but at least it is not misleading. Charophytes (as we use it here, at least) here is shown at the correct place: At the Streptophyte group. Charophytes are not a separate group, and should not be indicated as such. It actually is the Streptophyte group, except for a branch several stages deep in the tree containing the Embryophytes. -- JMV2009

I made a new version which is less confusing I think. But some will not like it as it suggests the Embryophytes are Charophytes and Green Algae, which of course they are, cladistically speaking. I think that's an ok thing to do if you are specifying that that's whats being done. Especially because Embryophytes are a kingdom and Algae are supposed to be a lower (smaller) taxonomic rank.-- JMV2009

Because when you make it explicit, it suggests for instance that Zygnematophyceae are closer to Mesostigmatophyceae while in fact they are closer to the Embryophytes. this is not a cladogram, if you want a cladogram look at the article. Its a navbox for navigation between templates. LOOK AT THE ARTICLES. Green algae divisions = charophyta and chlorophyta. Streptophyta = Charophyta + Embryophyta. This navbox should agree with articles. suggests the Embryophytes are Charophytes and Green Algae seriously what the heck? At no point did it suggest this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Response:

this is not a cladogram. But the traditionally excluded groups should not be on the same level as the paraphyletic group. It is misleading. --JMV2009

At no point did it suggest this. I was refering to my version, where I had e.g. "Streptophyte (Charophyte, (Cladistically) incl land plants)", and some people don't like this.

Indicated paraphyletic groups with italics, and removed Bryophytes group tag.--JMV2009

Put bryophytes back as commonly understood grouping. Larger grouping should not be shunted out of the boxes simply for cladistic reasons. Again, this is not a cladogram. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

However, I am still not seeing any justification for putting the Embryophytes on the same level as the Charophytes. It is unnecessarily misleading. --JMV2009

Answered on your talk page. [5]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think this is indeed correct: [6]. E.g. Charophytes should be listed in the Streptopyte box, not deeper. I'll leave it further alone, as consensus doesn't seem possible, despite the misleading. There is no rational discussion about the misleading issue I raised. --JMV2009.