Talk:Chlorophyta

Taxonomy
Shouldn't Chlorophyta belong either to Kingdom Protista or the new Kingdom Viridiplantae?
 * Read the referenced article and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive11. Basically we decided that it is not Protista, and yes maybe should be Viridiplantae, but there is no consensus amongst scientists yet. So rather that change every single plant taxbox, we have stuck with Plantae. Onco_p53 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
 * But if the text says "Chlorophyta are today classified under the Kingdom Protocista, Under the Phylum Viridiplantae, often called Phylum Algae.", I think it's best to change plantae to protisa. Now it's really hard to try understand which one this is. &mdash; linnea ( &lt;3 ) 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that text, which is simply wrong - Viridiplantae is not the same as the algae, and is never treated as a protist phylum. Nor are the Chlorophyceae a family, nor are they the only subdivision used today. Josh
 * So this also is wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chlamydomonas&diff=19308236&oldid=16049359 &mdash; linnea (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not wrong per se, but it's following a different standard then the one we agreed on. Josh

Where can I find the standard you agree on? According to the NCBI Taxonomy server at the division Chlorophyta belongs - together with the  Streptophyta - to the phylum Viridiplantae. Is this wrong? --Tom 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?
A lot of the text on this page can be found on www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chloroph.html, which states: ''The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press''. lycaon 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This material was added at the same time as the incorrect classification, so I'm reverting the previous version. Josh

Dit stukje hierboven klopt dus niet zo goed he. Eigenlijk niets. Ik wil meeeeeer info!! Ik weet er ook geen drol over. Ik weet wel dat de fochels HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL lief zijn :)

Stubs and Viridiplantae
OK I added protist and plant stubs to this category, as well as a link to my barebones article on Viridiplantae. Hopefully more people would add things in about the taxonomical debate.
 * The above comment was unsigned by User:68.163.203.253. Onco_p53 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
This information and page needs merged into the Green algae page. It looks complex. Is there someone comfortable doing it? I'll do it later on in the week if no one else jumps to it. KP Botany 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- Possibly I should not have added to the Chlorophyta! I added the classification to be found in Hoek,Mann & Jahns 1995.

Perhaps they should be merged, However under "Chlorophyta" rather than "Green algae" - it could be redirected! Too big a job for me! I don't know how to copy & paste an image for a start. Osborne 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah Ah!! The article "Green algae" is concerned with MICROSCOPIC green algae - or so the first line says! Can I move it to an article entitled "Microscipic green algae"? and move the Chlorophyta to "Green Algae"? There are "Brown Algae" and "Red Algae" articles, so this (i.e.Chlorophyta) should be moved to "Green Algae" - I think! Please advise, I am not confident to make such a move. Osborne 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC) help me

A division of green algae?
To me, this sounds like only some algae are chlorophyta. Is this correct? 141.14.245.148 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Confused names and information
The name "Chlorophyta" has been used in a number of different senses, two of which are confused in this article. Firstly it can be used to mean all green algae in what is called Viridiplantae or Chlorobionta or Chloroplastida or even just Plantae. This seems to be, for example, how it is used in the Encarta reference, which is why the total number of species is given there as 8,000. Secondly it can be used to mean only one of the two clades which make up Viridiplantae. If you go to you'll see that in this sense Chlorophyta has only 4,300 odd species. The two uses of the name are muddled up in the current version of the article, which thus contains inconsistent information. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now re-structured the article to distinguish between the two senses. There is some material which is commented out, which can be restored if someone works out which of the two senses it applies to (perhaps both, perhaps only one). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Bold and Wynne 1985
According to the article, the classification of Bold and Wynne (1985) is that: But, according to Hoek, Mann and Jahns (1995), the classification of Bold and Wynne (1985) is that:
 * Volvocales
 * Tetrasporales
 * Chlorococcales
 * Chlorosarcinales
 * Ulotrichales
 * Sphaeropleales
 * Chaetophorales
 * Trentepohliales
 * Oedogoniales
 * Ulvales
 * Cladophorales
 * Acrosiphoniales
 * Caulerpales
 * Siphonocladales
 * Dasycladales
 * Chlorophyta
 * Volvocales
 * Tetrasporales
 * Chlorococcales
 * Chlorosarcinales
 * Ulotrichales
 * Chaetophorales
 * Ulvales
 * Cladophorales
 * Siphonocladales
 * Acrosiophonales
 * Caulerpales
 * Dasycladales
 * Oedogoniales
 * Trentepohliales
 * Zignematales


 * Charophyta
 * Charales

Does anybody have the book of Bold and Wynne and could confirm if it is correct? Zorahia (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article classification is missing the orders Zygnematales (in Chlorophyta) and Charales (in Charophyta). I find the summary of the book in the site of a German library .Zorahia (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)