Talk:Embryophyte

Rating
I don't accept that this is a B-class article, as it was rated before. I've downgraded it to C. Referencing is poor, with only 3 in-text references. The "Relationship to green algae" section is muddled; the first part is just about classification, the second overlaps with the first part of the "Diversity and classification" section. Phylogeny (e.g. a cladogram) isn't covered at all. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, disorganized rambling without comprehension. I am beginning to think "Anyone can edit," should be changed to "Anyone can copypaste," from an academic website, in a random fashion and without understanding.

Page protection
I see it is short term page protection, but I do not think 2 IP vandal edits a minute apart, followed by over an hour of nothing, and no other recent vandalisms, constitutes "persistant vandalism." Just saying. Eau (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * too many vandalism, it is not good!--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

typo
in the "two contrasting classifications of living land plants" it mentions Marchiantiophyta. This should be Marchantiophyta (no i after the h) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.177.99 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Embryophyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226232147/http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf to http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Subkingdom
A few sources seem to be using the term "subkingdom" to refer to the embryophyta. It was also the level used in the Gymnosperm article. I've therefore placed this as the level in the infobox here and in the angiosperm page. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A 2000 reference is way, way out of date for this – molecular phylogenies and classifications have changed a lot since then. Is there an up-to-date source? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The term is used in more recent papers (e.g. ). However most papers that discuss embryophyte evolution don't explicitly name its taxonomic level (e.g.   ). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 23:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my experience: although some still do, most scientific workers now don't use formal Linnaean ranks, which is why we tend to do the same, and just use "clade". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Linnaean naming more often than not turns out to be inconsistent after reconsideration and refinement of relationships. Moreover, Linnaean ranks do not offer sufficient refinement for ultimate resolution into bifurcations. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Image
There are licensing problems with the current cover image. If it gets deleted, you can take this one, which is all embryophytes, starting with the mosses, then club moss, then horsetail, ferns, etc. I apologize for my previous edit, that was an error that I immediately undid myself, I had the images mixed up. Embryophytha 1.png is the correct one.

I have also made a new photomontage called Plants 1.png that can be used to replace the current Plants.jpg image in other articles as needed, in articles that are not about taxonomy, but about the plant kingdom as a whole. Sciencia58 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)