Talk:Pteridospermatophyta

Discussion
I am not sure how this new 'Automatic Taxobox' works but it has managed to put Lyginopteridopsida as an order, rather than a class that it actually is. I realise that the original version that I edited had the Gigantopteridaceae (family) as an order (inherited from the original version) but that was something I intended to fix. Alternatively, it may be best to just get rid of this attempt at a taxonomic structure here. Pteridosperms is not really a taxon in any meaningful sense, just a 'grade-group' of early seed-plants. As it stands, we are developing two parallel but essentially incompatible taxonomic structures: one based around Pteridosperms, the other structured around more natural groupings such as Cycadopsida, Ottokariopsida and Ginkgosida. CCleal (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "So, does the concept of pteridosperms have any value today?" seems to be written in a style more suited to a debate, so I have aded a debate template. This could be partly patched up by deleting or editing that sentence, but its inclusion has affected the tone of the remainder of the paragraph. Zag1024 (talk 1:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I attempted a rewrite of the paragraph in question. I think that a discussion of the validity of historical paleobotanical terms may be beyond the scope of this article but feel free to expand upon my edits.Fascinoma (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Glossopteridales
The taxonomy for Glossopteridales here and in the Gloss... article do not align. I will put a similar note in the talk for that article, and perhaps someone can sort this out. Here we have Pteridospermatophyta>Dictyopteridiopsida>Rigbyales (=Glossopteridales). There we have Pteridospermatophyta>Glossopteridales. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:6D65:DBCA:8828:2997 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader