Talk:Gymnosperm

message: :The question is not a simple one because by "scientific name" you imply something about the classification of the species included in the group, which in this case, has undergone considerable revision in recent decades.  If you are happy with just a "name" as used by scientists to indicate the group "gymnosperms" then Gymnospermae might do, although because Class Gymnospermae is not used anymore, it is really better to just use "gymnosperms" to generally refer to those plants under the scientific terms listed at the bottom of the article - Marshman 19:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the scientific name for gymnosperm?

message: There is not really such a thing as a "gymnosperm". There is a name "gymnosperms", Gymnospermae for a group of plants. As this name is widely used and is found throughout the literature there should be an entry on it and the name itself is a convenience. For the entry the name "gymnosperms"  would be more accurate than "gymnosperm".
A note as to the above comment: the scientific name is Gymnospermae (a name that can be used at any rank above that of family). This is straightforward. Also straightforward is what belongs to the group. The complicated issue is the nature of this group, which is of uncertain affinity, quite possibly paraphyletic (or worse). Brya 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the commentor is correct however: gymnosperms (the subject of this article) is what the article name should be - Marshman 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that policy is being misapplied or is as written short-sighted, or at least should have the caveat that the plural is appropriate where the article is, in fact, about the plural and not the singular. This is a good example.  While gymnosperm is the correct dictionary term, the article is not about "a gymnosperm" or "the gymnosperm", but the gymnosperms - Marshman 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right; in that sense they are all dictionary terms and not encyclopedia article names. But one could read the policy this way: "...unless that term is always in a plural form in English" means, if you are talking about dinosaurs, then that is the the way the term is always (corrctly) used; "The dinosaur lived millions of years ago" would be incorrect English. - Marshman 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Why is there a taxobox on this page if gymnosperms are no longer an individual taxon? SCHZMO ✍ 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a fair degree of uncertainty - they may be a natural monophyletic taxon, after all - MPF 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox 

message: Could someone knowledgeable describe the relevance of the Kubitzki system here (in the article)? Thanks very much. --Eleassar my talk 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kubitzki system

message: Does the gymnosperms have flowers?00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gymnoperms 

message: I placed the Expand template  on the article because this is not a large article and should be expanded if possible.Etineskid (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand

message: The last sentence of the introduction has been hacked up. It no longer makes sense. - Parsa (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gymnosperm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115190412/http://www.catalogueoflife.org/show_database_details.php?database_name=Conifer+Database to http://www.catalogueoflife.org/show_database_details.php?database_name=Conifer+Database
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For ths section maybe try and find some more information just to explain the genome a little bit better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoleary87 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics section 

message: This section is really good and informative. At the end of the section maybe provide an example to show the reader how a final classification and gymnosperm would be names/classified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoleary87 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gymnosperm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409044237/http://www.huh.harvard.edu/research/mathews-lab/atolHtmlSite/ to http://www.huh.harvard.edu/research/mathews-lab/atolHtmlSite/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been quetions on this talk page since 2005 over the latin name of this clade. I've found a source that could be useful on this:
It think this is probably the most appropriate nomenclature to use here. The page name should remain "Gymnosperm" per WP:COMMONNAME (and the Angiospermae are currently titled as Flowering plants). However, the Acrogymnospermae name is definitely worth a prominent mention. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is way out of date - see Pinales. It is never a good idea to use the term "current" in an encyclopaedia! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name revisited - Acrogymnospermae 

message: Hi there,
 
I love to fix minuscule page problems that don’t really matter, but I don’t know the first thing about how go about fixing the broken syntax in the very first sentence to properly produce an audio pronunciation according to Wikipedia’s pronunciation template standards. My eyes always just automatically skip over these pronunciation guides so I don’t even know what they’re supposed to look like, nor how to edit them. This one is an eyesore that appears to be telling readers that the word gymnospore is pronounced “Greece” haha. Dynen (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gymnospore" doesn't even appear in the article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of “Gymnosperm” 

message: In the classification section, I believe there is some confusion between classification schemes. The link for Order Pinales directs you to the wikipedia page with the same name, but meant in the sense of all conifers. On this page, the word "Pinales" was only used as a placeholder order containing the pine family and excluding other conifers. I don't know if there is a more correct page to link to, given the competing systems, but as it stands, it leads to confusion. 81.111.196.52 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification terminology