Talk:Drepanophycaceae

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Drepanophycaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301123850/http://www.scientific-web.com/en/Biology/Plants/Lycopodiophyta/Drepanophycaceae.html to http://www.scientific-web.com/en/Biology/Plants/Lycopodiophyta/Drepanophycaceae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Drepanophycaceae
The only authority for the family treated by this article (as distinct from the characteristics of the genera of which it is composed) is some anonymous archived web page. This can't be classed as a reliable source.

The 13th edition of Engler's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, Part 3 published in 2009, is a respected secondary or tertiary source (depending on your interpretation) of information on plant families. According to this (p. 290) the family includes Asteroxylon and the Asteroxylaceae, so all the article content about having vascularized microphylls goes out the window.

The reality is that there is little agreement about these early plant families and perhaps it is better not to have a page on them, but redirect up to the next higher rank. MisterCDE (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that although the family is used in the literature, definitions vary. For example, Kenrick and Crane (1997) in their cladistic study place Asteroxylon in the clade Drepanophycaceae. Taylor, Taylor & Krings (2009) don't use the family at all, only the order Drepanophycales, and say that Asteroxylon is sometimes included in the Drepanophycales. The most recent paper I've found that uses the taxon Drepanophycaceae just uses it to classify a new species of Baragwanathia, but doesn't indicate the circumscription of the family. So I think there's a good case for up-merging this article into Drepanophycales, at the least. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article on Drepanophycales so that it is more or less ready to take over, if you wish to make that change. At the time I created the Drepanophycales article back in 2006, the attribution (taken from The Fossil Record) was to Pichi-Sermolli. However, that was a nomen nudum which is no longer acceptable, and IFPNI now credits Novák with the name. I also took the liberty of cutting and pasting from your remarks above into the Drepanophycales section on families, hope you don't mind! I wouldn't be surprised if there are more changes in future, since Asteroxylaceae has priority over Drepanophycaceae, and priority still applies to family names. MisterCDE (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)