Talk:Gnetidae

Untitled

Do cotyledons count as leaves? Because if they did, I think welwitchia would have 4 leaves through all it's life, 2 that split and grow and 2 that wither and die. Lotusduck 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

2 refers to the number of permanent leaves. The plant does not have the cotyledons for its entire life. SCHZMO ✍ 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetophyta

--17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)71.33.50.59I'm not a botanist. I came to this site hoping to find out how gnetophyta differed from magnoliophyta. I'm doing a ?lineage on maize and would like to explain what the characteritics are than split each grouping.

"possibly paraphyletic"

I removed the following text:

, a possibly paraphyletic group of seed plant divisions

The possibly paraphyletic nature of the gymnosperms is well-covered in the gymnosperm article (and the cites there seem to point to the living gymnosperms as being monophyletic, although I'm not sure whether this is fully settled yet). If we really want the gnetophyta article to discuss the impact of the placement of the gnetophyta upon the monophyletic/paraphyletic nature of the gymnosperms, we could use some better wording (which better connects the issue to the discussion about morphology and molecular data). But at least for me, we have sufficient text, between the text remaining here, and the gymnosperm and vessel element articles.

Infradivisional classification

The splitting of Gnetophyta into Gnetales (Gnetum), Ephedrales (Ephedra) and Welwitschiales (Welwitschia) is a POV (and according to whose classification, I don't know) and certainly does not represent a consensus view of the classification of this group. Many classifications place all three genera in a single order, Gnetales. As with virtually all articles dealing with plant classification, this article needs to indicate much more clearly whose classification it is presenting. MrDarwin 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Every classification is a POV, but I otherwise agree with MrDarwin that it needs to be referenced.--Curtis Clark 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just say "the division contains 3 genera" and mostly/completely ignore classes, orders, and families. Granted, there is some scientific basis for separate/combined orders (roughly, how long ago the lines diverged), but I'm not sure that's so important for the general reader. Kingdon 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pnetophyta" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pnetophyta and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Pnetophyta until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Gnetophyta → Gnetidae – Molecular phylogenetic analyses consistently place Gnetidae within Pinophyta, a result considered to be relatively stable. The WFO Plant List also treats Gnetidae as a subclass of the class Pinopsida. It is considered evident that this taxon can no longer be regarded as an independent phylum or class, as doing so would render Pinophyta paraphyletic.. コロネン (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Agree: this seems a justified move. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, this seems to be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.