Talk:Azolla primaeva

Clarification request
The article currently states "At the time of Dr Arnold's paper was published, four species of Azolla had been described from the fossil record" and then "with the placement of A. primaeva into the genus Azolla it was actually the first species to be described from the fossil record". I don't understand how these can both be true - surely if four species had already been described, this was the fifth species, not the first. Smartse (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He was noting that, as A. primaevum was first published as a species in 1890 by Penhallow (in Dawson), it was the oldest description, but it was not realized that it belonged in Azolla until Arnolds 1955 re-description, at which point four other species had been described.-- Kev min  § 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks for explaining. Smartse (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)