Talk:Rhyniophyte

message: This page should say how many species of rhyniophytes there are. --Savant13 14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of species

message: As much as I know, Rhyniophytes are divided into three classes: Rhyniopsida, Zosterophytopsida and Horneophytopsida; so I am not sure if we should include "Classis" rank in the taxobox as it is included right now. Maybe we should make subpages for classes or smth? Klon-immortal 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the cited references (both by Kenrick & Crane) and other recent references.  The Zosterophyllopsida and Horneophytopsida are not in the same clade. The zosterophylls are sister to the Lycopodiophyta and the Horneophytopsida are not vascular plants.  The Rhyniophyta sensu Banks and others has been dismantled as a result of more careful morphological analysis of the fossils.  So the Rhyniophyta classes are actually three clades in a paraphyletic basal assemblage of polysoprangiates. (See the cladogram on the Plant article.) --EncycloPetey 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Class" rank in taxobox 

message: Hi,
I see that an image of Agalophyton has been added and removed from this article.  Its overall morphology is similar to that of the Rhyniophytes; would it perhaps be better to include the image with a caption detailing the caveats, so that people unfamiliar with the topic at least get an idea of what the plant looked like?
Verisimilus T 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it doesn't belong to this group.  That would be like adding a conifer picture to illustrate a page on angiosperms, or using an amphibian to illustrate an article on reptiles.  Aglaophyton is a non-vascular plant; the rhyniophytes are vascular plants.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (Addendum) In any case, the recent reconstructions I've seen for Rhynia don't look like Aglaophyton at all.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. My point was that you can't tell from the outer morphology whether or not a plant is vascular; in my hazy memory the two looked similar enough for the picture to be of passing help.  Clearly not - thanks for clarifying! Verisimilus T 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of [[Agalophyton]] 

message: We are tought in university that Rhyniophyta are ancestors not only of vascular plants, but of mosses too... We are tought that mosses evolved because of reduction of sporophyte and progress of gametophyte. As I see from the cladogram in this article, it's not true? Or it's not clear yet? Vikte (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That hypothesis has been around for a long time, but it has not been supported by any research.  All recent studies indicate that vascular plants are a monophyletic group, and the bryophytes are an ancestral assemblage from which the vascular plants evolved.  There are no recent studies that support the evolution of bryophytes from a rhyniophyte ancestor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What mosses evolved from...? 

message: As noted above, the original "Rhyniophyta" of Banks has been discredited; the Rhyniopsida are not within the Rhyniophyta in recent cladistic analyses. So (1) the article as of 29 Jan 2011 is out of date (2) the title is wrong: it would be better as Rhyniopsida with a brief comment on the former classification. I proposed to make these changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I originally moved the article from "Rhyniophyta" to "Rhyniopsida", I thought I should comment on why I've now, after discussion with , moved it to "Rhyniophytina". The names, definitions and circumscriptions used for the group have not been clarified, as far as I can tell, in the last 7 years, so any article has to discuss all of them. The title under which this is done doesn't really matter. It seems best at present to use Banks's name, because although Cronquist et al.'s "Rhyniophyta" is slightly earlier, Banks's usage seems to have been the starting point for later work. An alternative could be to use the informal "Rhyniophyte", but this has also been used for the Rhynie flora, so is less clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title