Talk:Pteridospermatophyta

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

I am not sure how this new 'Automatic Taxobox' works but it has managed to put Lyginopteridopsida as an order, rather than a class that it actually is. I realise that the original version that I edited had the Gigantopteridaceae (family) as an order (inherited from the original version) but that was something I intended to fix. Alternatively, it may be best to just get rid of this attempt at a taxonomic structure here. Pteridosperms is not really a taxon in any meaningful sense, just a 'grade-group' of early seed-plants. As it stands, we are developing two parallel but essentially incompatible taxonomic structures: one based around Pteridosperms, the other structured around more natural groupings such as Cycadopsida, Ottokariopsida and Ginkgosida. CCleal (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "So, does the concept of pteridosperms have any value today?" seems to be written in a style more suited to a debate, so I have aded a debate template. This could be partly patched up by deleting or editing that sentence, but its inclusion has affected the tone of the remainder of the paragraph. Zag1024 (talk 1:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I attempted a rewrite of the paragraph in question. I think that a discussion of the validity of historical paleobotanical terms may be beyond the scope of this article but feel free to expand upon my edits.Fascinoma (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossopteridales

The taxonomy for Glossopteridales here and in the Gloss... article do not align. I will put a similar note in the talk for that article, and perhaps someone can sort this out. Here we have Pteridospermatophyta>Dictyopteridiopsida>Rigbyales (=Glossopteridales). There we have Pteridospermatophyta>Glossopteridales. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:6D65:DBCA:8828:2997 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader[reply]

Can you semi-protect this page for few days? That IP user was ruining this page.

So, do you know that that IP-user was vandalizing this page?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jovandrisusanto26 (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovandrisusanto26 Looks like the IP has been blocked for now. Go to WP:RPP if there is any more trouble. And please, don't open an edit request.⸺(Random)staplers 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]