Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2259cc88979c526

Jump to content

Talk:Psilotum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

what does a whisk fern look like? Kew Gardens has (or had) some in the Princess of Wales conservatory, but it may be best to ask for directions, as the plants are small and poorly signed. 213.78.104.65 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Psilotophyta vs. Pteridophyta

[edit]

Psilotum is a "fern" and thus placing it in Psilotophyta is probably not the best way to treat it. On the other hand, neither the fern classification paper I have been using nor any other papers I have seen dealing with the relationships of Psilotum treat ferns as a whole as "Pteridophyta" or at any other named rank--one reason why I have been reluctant to deal with the taxoboxes. MrDarwin 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the evidence is fairly strong that the ferns, horsetails, and psilotopsids form a clade. I suppose one could call that clade Pteridophyta (and call the other two major vascular plant clades Lycopodiophyta and Spermatophyta), and it wouldn't surprise me to find those circumscriptions in the literature. Of course how all this plays out in Wikipedia is a never-ending source of controversy and amusement.--Curtis Clark 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"They are the only vascular plants lacking true roots and leaves"

[edit]

I am quite certain this is wrong. There are numerous parasitic plants that lack true roots and leaves (e.g., Rafflesia) and it's debatable whether some of the Podostemonaceae possess true roots or leaves. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think this is more a case of the original being carelessly worded. I suspect "they" was meant to refer to the family, i.e. the two genera, and refer to the assumption that their ancestors never had these characters. However, it's better as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply